’LIBRARY 
OF  THE 

|?*'!Vf-R^|TV  or  !j  1  ,?=50!<; 

Sales  of  Arms  to  French  Agents, 


SPEECH 


HON.  IATT.  H.  CARPENTER, 


OF  \V  ISCONSTN, 


DELIVERED 


IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 


FEBRUARY  29,  1ST2. 


WASHINGTON: 

F.  &  J.  RIVES  &  GEO.  A.  BAILEY, 

REPORTERS  AND  PRINTERS  OF  THE  DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 

1872. 


t 


fS 

w*  S| 

S»  W> 

za>  ■  l 

r««  K+m 
***' 

-  3  A 

m 

ca  : 

:f  j 
e-  ;'•-) 
««  -■  - 
«®  r-* 

e|;  *  4 

»  ,*• 

C2  : 


S3 

ns 


CSSASAO 

€3 


i 


Sales  of  Arms  to  French  Agents. 


<K 


The  Senate  having  under  consideration  the  reso¬ 
lution  submitted  by  Mr.  Sumner  on  the  12th  of  Feb¬ 
ruary,  relative  to  alleged  sales  of  arms  to  French 
agents— 

Mr.  CARPENTER  said: 

Mr.  President:  It  is  the  practice  in  the 
courts  of  law,  when  a  complaint  is  made  against 
any  citizen  for  a  wrongful  act,  first  to  test  the 
sufficiency  of  the  complaint  by  what  is  termed 
a  demurrer,  by  which  the  question  of  law  em¬ 
braced  in  the  complaint  is  first  to  be  settled 
by  the  court,  conceding  the  facts  to  be  as  they 
are  claimed  by  the  plaintiff.  In  this  proceed¬ 
ing  the  friends  of  the  Administration  have  not 
thought  this  a  proper  course  to  pursue.  The 
difference  between  the  two  cases  is  very  mani¬ 
fest.  In  a  court  of  law  the  proceeding  is  had 
in  good  faith  ;  it  is  had  for  the  purpose  of  ascer¬ 
taining  the  truth,  and  with  the  design  to  admin¬ 
ister  impartial  justice  to  all  persons  concerned. 
There  is,  therefore,  no  danger  of  being  misrep¬ 
resented  by  first  stopping  to  consider  whether 
the  plaintiff  has  made  out  a  case  upon  his  own 
statement  of  facts,  or  to  test,  in  other  words, 
its  sufficiency  as  matter  of  law. 

Had  the  friends  of  the  Administration  de¬ 
murred  to  this  resolution  it  would  have  been 
heralded  all  over  the  country  that  they  dared 
not  meet  the  questions  of  fact  involved  in  it. 
A  different  course  had  therefore  to  be  taken, 
and  the  friends  of  the  Administration  having 
joined  issue  upon  this  resolution,  have  been 
trying  that  issue  for  the  last  two  weeks.  It  is 
safe  to  say  that  every  question  of  fact  raised 
by  the  preamble  of  the  resolution  now  before 
the  Senate  has  been  conclusively  settled  against 
the  theory  of  the  resolution  itself.  And  any 
lawyer  who  would  take  this  case  before  a  jury 
in  a  court  of  law  for  the  purpose  of  settling 
the  questions  of  fact  involved  in  it,  and  could 
not  obtain  twenty  verdicts  of  acquittal  in  suc¬ 
cession,  ought  to  be  hanged  as  an  imposter. 
[Laughter.]  I  therefore  hope  it  is  safe  at  this 
point  to  raise  the  question  of  law  involved  in 
this  preamble,  and  which  has  been,  to  some  I 


extent,  presented  by  the  Senator  from  Massa¬ 
chusetts. 

Politics,  Mr.  President,  is  one  of  the 
strangest  subjects  that  ever  perplexed  the 
human  mind.  When  politics  comes  in  reason 
and  justice  go  out.  We  see  it  illustrated  to¬ 
day  on  both  sides  of  the  water.  In  regard  to 
the  Alabama  treaty,  the  Tories  in  Parliament, 
being  desirous  of  bringing  on  a  ministerial 
crisis,  complain  against  the  ministry  for  hav¬ 
ing  concluded  a  treaty  which  puts  England,* 
bound  hand  and  foot,  in  the  power  of  America. 
Mr.  Gladstone,  not  to  be  outdone  in  seeking 
popular  favor,  rushes  to  the  forefront  and 
pronounces  the  Alabama  case  (I  will  not  try 
to  quote  his  language,  but  its  substance)  a 
swindle,  thus  forced  by  his  political  necessities 
into  using  language  which  certainly  no  premier 
in  England  would  use  except  under  the  stress 
of  political  necessity. 

Now,  what  have  we  here?  A  presidential 
campaign  is  just  opening ;  a  Chief  Magistrate 
is  to  be  elected,  who,  in  his  department,  is  to 
guide  public  affairs  for  the  next  four  years.  A 
question  is  sprung  here  based  upon  a  state  of 
facts  which  has  been  known  to  the  Senators 
moving  it  for  a  year  or  two,  but  which  has 
never  been  complained  of  before. 

Mr.  SUMNER.  Not  to  me  until  within  a 
few  weeks.  I  never  knew  of  it  before. 

Mr.  CARPENTER.  Before  Christmas  or 
before  December,  I  believe,  the  statement  was 
that  the  honorable  Senator  had  the  informa¬ 
tion.  At  all  events,  the  facts  as  they  are  have 
been  known  or  might  have  been  ascertained 
by  any  one  who  had  examined  the  published 
reports  of  the  Departments,  touching  the  sub¬ 
ject,  during  the  last  two  years.  There  has 
been  no  concealment  about  this  business,  no 
attempt  to  cover  it  up.  Everything  that  has 
been  done  .  has  been  done  by  the  executive 
officers  of  the  Government  in  execution  of 
the  laws  of  Congress,  and  just  what  they  have 
done  has  been  spread  before  the  country  in  the 
regular  official  reports  of  those  Departments. 
But  now,  just  in  the  nick  of  time,  now,  just 


1 030647 


4 


■when  the  public  mind  is  being  turned  to  this 
presidential  canvass,  this  question  supersedes 
all  others,  puts  aside  all  the  business  of  the 
session,  and  is  forced  here  upon  the  attention  ' 
of  the  Senate  and  upon  the  attention  of  the 
country. 

Mr.  President,  there  are  situations  in  which 
we  sometimes  find  men  where  Christian  charity 
compels  us  to  charge  them  with  a  venial  fault 
as  the  only  means  of  exculpating  them  from 
crime.  One  of  two  things  is  certain:  the 
Senators  who  have  moved  and  promoted  this 
inquiry — it  is  a  misnomer  to  call  it  an  inquiry  ; 
it  is  an  assault  upon  the  Administration  ;  that 
was  the  intention  of  it ;  that  has  been  the  effect ; 
that  has  been  the  form  it  has  assumed — these 
Senators  must  either  believe  that  there  is  no 
foundation  whatever  for  this  proposition  ;  they 
must  either  believe  that  our  Government  has 
not  violated  its  neutral  duties,  and  that  it  will 
come  out  of  the  investigation  without  the  smell 
of  fire  upon  its  garments,  and  therefore  have 
introduced  this  resolution  as  mere  political 
clap- trap  for  party  purposes,  or  they  must 
believe  that  our  Government  has  violated  its 
neutral  duties,  and  they  are  now  taking  up  . 
the  clubs  for  a  foreign  nation  and  brandishing  j- 
them  over  our  own  native  land.  That  would 
be  not  merely  to  lack  patriotism,  but  very 
near  treason.  It  would  possess  all  the  moral 
or  immoral  elements  of  treason,  although  it  I 
might  not  come  within  the  legal  definition,  j 
Therefore,  sir,  Christian  charity  compels  me  j 
to  say  that  these  Senators  do  not  believe  that  j 
this  charge  has  the  slightest  foundation  in  fact ;  j 
and  thus,  and  only  thus,  can  they  be  acquitted  j 
of  a  far  more  serious  charge. 

Why,  sir,  consider  for  a  moment,  see  what  j 
would  be  the  result.  Suppose  this  investiga-  | 
tion  to  go  on,  and  it  should  turn  out  that  we  j 
had  violated  our  neutral  duties  and  given  j 
Prussia  cause  of  war,  what  would  follow  ?  I 
The  least  thing  these  Senators  could  do  would 
be  to  move  an  apology  to  Prussia.  Without  j 
stopping  to  consider  the  humiliation  of  our  j 
voluntarily  prostrating  ourselves  before  a  for-  I 
eign  Power  by  an  apology  when  that  Power  has 
made  no  complaint  whatever,  and  by  its  prin-  S 
cipal  home  officers  says  our  conduct  was  en¬ 
tirely  legal,  suppose  that  when  the  Senators 
have  brought  the  Senate  of  the  United  States 
or  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  up  to  the 
point  of  apologizing,  Prussia  should  then  enter 
into  the  joke  and  say  that  she  would  not  re¬ 
ceive  an  apology ;  that  if  we  had  violated  the 
law  of  nations  we  must  answer  for  it  under  the  ; 
law  of  nations?  Then  those  Senators  in  the 
interest  of  peace  would  have  to  offer  an  arbi¬ 
tration  to  Prussia.  Suppose  Prussia  should 
decline  an  arbitration  and  should  say  to  the 
United  States,  “  We  did  not  know  you  had 
violated  the  law  of  nations ;  we  did  not  know  - 
you  had  wronged  us;  we  did  not  know  you  ' 
were  guilty  of  this  great  offense  ;  but  you  have 
brought  it  to  our  notice,  absolutely  forced  it 
upon  our  attention  ;  you  have  made  it  our  duty 
as  a  nation  to  vindicate  our  honor;  our 
wounded  honoris  not  to  be  healed  with  dollars 
and  cents  ;  we  were  in  the  struggle  with  France, 


and  your  intervention,  which  you  confess  pro¬ 
longed  that  struggle,  increased  our  expenses, 
shed  the  blood  of  Prussians  all  over  the  soil 
of  France;  now  you  must  submit  to  what  we 
dictate  or  you  must  fight?  ”  It  strikes  me  this 
would  not  be  a  very  unreasonable  thing  for 
Prussia  to  do  under  such  circumstances.  Let 
me  ask  these  honorable  Senators  in  what  atti¬ 
tude  they  would  be,  asking  the  Senate  to  vote 
supplies  of  men  and  money  to  prosecute  a  war 
which  they  had  in  advance  declared  was  just  on 
the  part  of  Prussia  against  the  United  States? 

So  I  repeat  the  assertion,  and  I  say  it  is 
my  duty  as  a  Christian,  it  is  my  duty  in  obe¬ 
dience  to  the  great  golden  rule  of  doing  to 
them  as  I  would  have  them  do  to  me,  to  con¬ 
clude  that  they  believe  this  charge  to  be  as 
baseless  as  a  dream  ;  that  it  is  brought  for¬ 
ward  here  for  mere  political,  partisan  effect ; 
brought  to  stab  an  administration,  when  they 
believe  themselves  that  on  the  investigation 
our  Government  will  stand  clear  of  blame  and 
be  in  no  danger  of  being  called  to  account  by 
a  foreign  Power. 

The  Senator  from  Missouri  [Mr.  Scnurtz] 
the  other  day,  in  remarks  submitted  to  the  Sen¬ 
ate,  observed  that  Mr.  Bright  and  other  mem¬ 
bers  of  Parliament  who  raised  their  voices 
against  the  course  pursued  by  England  in  re¬ 
gard  to  permitting  the  Alabama  and  other  ships 
of  war  to  sail  from  their  ports,  were  the  true 
patriots  of  that  Parliament.  Very  likely  ;  but 
note  the  difference  between  their  case  and  the 
case  of  the  Senator  from  Missouri.  Mr.  Bright 
was  raising  his  voice  to  prevent  a  meditated 
wrong.  He  was  doing  his  duty  inside  the  Par¬ 
liament  of  England,  raising  his  voice  to  guide 
public  affairs,  as  it  was  his  duty  to  do.  But 
after  the  Alabama  had  sailed,  after  she  had 
preyed  upon  our  commerce  for  months  and 
years,  and  we  were  talking  about  compensa 
tion  in  some  form,  if  Mr.  Bright  moved  any 
committees  of  investigation  in  Parliament  for 
the  purpose  of  putting  on  record  evidence  of 
the  facts  against  England,  showing  the  extent 
of  the  depredations  committed  by  this  cruiser, 
I  have  not  seen  it.  I  do  not  profess  to  be  a 
very  attentive  reader  of  current  events  in  other 
nations,  and  I  may  have  overlooked  that;  but 
I  do  not  believe  Mr.  Bright  has  done  any¬ 
thing  of  the  kind.  His  raising  his  voiGe  in 
advance  to  prevent  a  wrong,  and  the  Senator 
from  Missouri  raising  his  voice,  if  a  wrong 
has  been  committed,  long  after  it  is  too  late 
to  correct  it,  are  very  different  cases. 

Mr.  SCHURZ.  Will  the  Senator  from  Wis¬ 
consin  just  permit  me? 

Mr.  CARPENTER.  Mr.  President,  let  me 
say  to  my  friend  from  Missouri  that  I  am  labor¬ 
ing  to-day  under  very  great  physical  weakness 
and  exhaustion,  standing  on  one  foot  because 
the  other  is  useless,  and  an  interruption  would 
only  protract  what  I  have  to  say,  and  I  desire 
to  conclude  as  soon  as  possible,  after  which  I 
will  listen  to  him  attentively  for  three  days,  as 
I  have  for  two  or  three  already. 

Mr.  President,  there  is  another  fact  which 
claims  attention  in  this  connection.  Not  a 
Democrat  in  this  Chamber  has  raised  his 


o 


voice.  The  old  animosity  that  has  existed  | 
between  the  Democratic  party  and  the  Repub-  ; 
lican  party  ever  since  1861,  which  has  at  times  j 
been  very  bitter,  leading  to  personalities  and 
all  sorts  of  schemes  on  each  side  to  get  advan-  j 
tageof  the  other,  this  ordinary  antagonism  of  i 
party  has  not  brought  a  single  Democrat  to  | 
his  feet.  It  is  said  that  the  Democrats  prefer  | 
to  keep  out  of  this  debate  and  let  Republicans 
quarrel  among  themselves.  It  is  said  that  we  ; 
are  doing  their  work  far  better  than  they  could  ; 
do  it  themselves.  It  is  said  that  my  honorable  j 
friend  from  Ohio,  not  now  in  his  seat,  [Mr.  ! 
Thurman,]  is  too  sagacious  a  leader  to  come 
forward  and  mix  in  this  debate  while  Repub¬ 
licans  are  damaging  the  Administration  a 
great  deal  more  than  he  could.  Now,  sir,  I 
always  prefer  to  assign  a  creditable  motive 
for  a  man’s  conduct  when  I  can ;  and  if  I  can 
think  of  any  motive  which  these  Democrats 
may  have  more  creditable  than  the  one  which 
has  been  assigned  to  them,  I  will  assign  that, 
because  I  announced  in  advance  that  I  was 
going  through  the  little  I  have  to  say  on  this 
subject  in  a  spirit  of  enlarged  Christian  charity. 

Mr.  President,  the  Democratic  party  is  not 
new  to  this  country.  There  are  many  things  ! 
in  its  history  of  which  our  country  may  boast,  j 
When  the  war  of  1861  came  upon  us,  had  it  ! 
been  a  foreign  war,  that  party  would  not  have  I 
faltered  a  moment  in  the  full  vindication  of  j 
our  national  rights.  But  the  Democratic  party  I 
had  been  so  involved  with  the  interests  of  j 
slavery,  so  committed  to  the  State  pretensions  | 
falsely  called  State  rights,  the  majority  of  its 
members  residing  in  slave  States,  that  when 
the  war  came,  and  on  one  side  the  United 
States  called  for  their  support,  sympathy  for 
those  States  in  which  their  strength  was  found, 
and  all  those  associations  and  party  ties  which 
bind  men  so  strongly  in  politics,  were  drawing  | 
them  in  another  direction.  The  Democratic 
party  was  in  much  the  same  predicament  that 
a  humorous  writer  says  Brigham  Young  was 
with  his  thirty  wives :  his  affections  were 
almightily  perplexed.  [Laughter.]  That  was 
the  unfortunate  situation  of  the  Democratic 
party,  and  in  that  great  crisis  it  failed  of  its 
duty,  dishonored  its  renown,  and  lowered  to  a 
domestic  foe  the  flag  it  had  always  borne  so 
high  in  the  face  of  foreign  nations. 

But,  Mr.  President,  it  is  always  agreeable 
to  give  credit  where  credit  is  due ;  and  therefore 
I  desire  to  pay  my  respects  to  the  old  Demo-  ! 
cratic  party,  of  which  I  was  a  member  just  as 
long  as  I  thought  I  could  be  innocently,  and  j 
naturally  have  some  of  those  kindly  feelings  j 
for  it  which  I  suppose  warm  the  heart  of  a  j 
foreigner,  even  after  he  is  naturalized  in  our  j 
country,  when  thinking  of  his  native  land. 

It  is  a  fact,  that  the  greenest  laurels  ever  !. 
worn  by  the  Democratic  party  were  won  in  j 
conducting  our  foreign  relations.  It  is  true  j 
that  they  always  held  a  clear  light  to  the  front 
when  a  foreign  nation  made  question  of  our  j 
proceedings.  Go  back  to  the  days  of  Jack-  ! 
son,  and  suppose  three  or  four  administration  ! 
Senators  rising  in  their  places  to  make  an 
assault  upon  him  in  the  interest  of  France,  ! 


while  he  was  saying  that  France  must  either 
pay  or  fight.  That  great  institution  called 
“the  Globe”  would  have  been  set  in  motion 
with  a  keener  edge  and  a  far  more  fatal  effect 
than  ever  the  guillotine  fell  upon  the  head  of 
a  traitor  in  France. 

In  1856,  when  the  old  Whig  party  disbanded, 
and  many  of  its  best  men  were  doubtful  as  to 
their  duty,  Rufus  Choate,  the  most  eminent 
of  the  living  citizens  of  Massachusetts — Web* 
ster  was  sleeping  at  Marshfield — after  much  hes¬ 
itation,  fiually  determined  to  act  with  the  De¬ 
mocratic  party  in  that  emergency.  Mr.  Choate 
had  been  a  member  of  this  body ;  he  stood  at 
the  head  of  the  legal  profession  in  his  native 
State,  and  had  no  superior  at  any  bar,  Eng¬ 
lish  or  American.  As  an  advocate  he  had  no 
peer.  In  this  department  of  his  profession  I 
do  not  believe  his  equal  ever  lived.  A  mass 
of  uninteresting  facts,  the  tedious  details  of  the 
dryest  subject,  touched  by  his  magic  wand,  stood 
forth  to  the  quickened  apprehension  of  court 
or  jury  with  the  beauty  and  freshness  of  spring  j 
and  his  nervous  oratory  and  magnetic  eloquence 
moved  the  tenderest  emotions  and  strongest 
passions  of  men  as  the  wind  sways  the  forest. 
With  international  and  municipal  law,  and 
especially  with  American  constitutional  law, 
he  was  entirely  familiar.  He  was  full  of  learn¬ 
ing,  but  not  incumbered  by  it,  for  the  details 
of  his  knowledge  were  not  attached  to  him 
like  merchandise  strapped  to  a  dromedary, 
but  were  digested,  assimilated,  made  part  of 
himself  by  the  fusing  power  of  his  transcend¬ 
ent  genius.  He  was  a  great  man,  every  way. 
His  noble  nature,  fitted  to  walk  with  assured 
steps  in  the  highest  fields  of  statesmanship, 
scorned  the  low  tricks  and  dirty  devices  of 
politics;  a  lover  of  his  country,  not  merely 
from  the  blind  instinctive  affection  which  all 
men  feel  for  their  native  land,  but  from  a  wise, 
appreciative  admiration  of  the  character  of 
free  institutions  and  their  necessity  to  the  well¬ 
being  and  progress  of  mankind,  and  from  his 
belief  that  the  one  indispensable  duty  of  every 
American,  a  duty  rising  above  all  others, 
was  the  preservation  of  the  Union ;  and, 
moreover,  that  the  peril  of  that  hour  was  the 
danger  of  dissolution  of  the  Union,  he  hesi¬ 
tated  long  in  painful  deliberation  where  he 
should  go,  what  he  could  do,  to  avert  the 
threatened  incalculable  disaster.  He  was  in 
brokerf  health  and  in  melancholy  mood.  In 
the  formation  of  a  new  party,  which  at  first 
must  be  geographical,  he  saw  nothing  but 
evil.  In  the  bright  hopes  with  which  other 
men  hailed  the  advent  of  a  new  party,  hopes 
that  have  since  been  more  than  realized,  he 
did  not  participate ;  and  with  gloomy  fore¬ 
bodings,  looking  about  him  for  those  associa¬ 
tions  which  in  his  opinion  would  enable  him 
to  do  most  good  in  that  crisis,  he  determined 
to  act  for  the  time  with  the  Democratic  party. 
And  he  has  left  us  the  reason  that  finally 
detemined  his  course. 

In  his  speech  at  Lowell,  in  the  autumn 
of  1856,  in  the  presidential  canvass  of  that 
year,  referring  to  the  Democratic  party, 
and  after  saying  that  he  had  always'  been  a 


6 


Whig,  and  as  such  had  always  opposed  the 
domestic  policy  of  the  Democratic  party,  he 
said: 

“There  was  never  an  election  contest  that  in  de¬ 
nouncing  the  particulars  of  its  policy  I  did  not 
admit  that  the  characteristic  of  the  Democratic  party 
was  this:  that  it  had  burned  ever  with  that  great 
master-passion  this  hour  demands— a  youthful, vehe¬ 
ment, exultant,  and  progressive  nationality.  Through 
some  errors,  into  some  perils,  it  has  been  led  by  it; 
it  may  be  so  again;  we  may  require  to  temper  and 
restrain  it,  but  to-day  we  need  it  all,  we  need  it  all  !— 
the  hopes,  the  boasts,  the  pride,  the  universal  toler- 
ence,  the  gay  and  festive  defiance  of  foreign  dictation, 
the  flag,  the  music,  all  the  emotions,  all  the  traits,  all 
the  energies,  that  have  won  their  victories  of  war 
and  their  miracles  of  national  advancement— the 
country  needs  them  all  now  to  win  a  victory  of 
peace.  That  done,  I  will  pass  again,  happy  and 
content,  into  that  minority  of  conservatism  in  which 
I  have  passed  my  life." 

Assuming,  as  I  do,  that  this  great  impas¬ 
sioned  orator  did  no  more  than  justice  to  the 
Democratic  party  in  regard  to  its  intense  Ameri¬ 
can  feeling,  its  partisanship  for  our  own  country 
as  against  other  nations,  it  is  not  difficult  to  un¬ 
derstand  that  the  Democrats  in  this  Chamber, 
though  willing  to  see  the  Republican  party 
torn  asunder  by  internal  dissensions,  though 
beholding  with  pleasure  the  assault  now  being 
made  by  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts  [Mr. 
Sumner]  and  the  Senator  from  Missouri  [Mr. 
Schurz]  upon  a  Republican  Administration, 
would  nevertheless  scorn  to  become  a  party 
to  an  assault  which  would  compel  them  to 
take  sides  with  another  Government  against 
our  own.  They  will  doubtless  circulate  the 
speeches  of  these  attacking  Senators,  but 
they  will'  make  no  such  speeches  them- 
selves. 

The  Senator  from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  Sum¬ 
ner]  yesterday,  after  having  disposed  ot  all 
that  had  been  said  by  Administration  Sena¬ 
tors  on  the  subject, by  pronouncing  it  “mere 
words,”  says  :  “  Now  let  us  put  words  aside 
and  come  to  things;”  and  then  the  Senator 
took  up  his  written  speech  and  proceeded  to 
deliver  it.  Coming  to  the  pretended  facts  of 
the  case,  he  says: 

“  The  case  naturally  opens  with  the  resolution  of 
the  committee  of  the  French  Assembly. 

Yes,  sir,  the  case  naturally  opened  in  France. 
And  it  is  to  be  regretted  that  propriety  had  not 
been  observed,  and  the  case  been  permitted  to 
close  in  France.  It  is  a  humiliating  spectacle, 
an  American  Senate  made  the  forum  for  pre¬ 
senting  complaints  against  our  own.country  in 
favor  of  a  foreign  nation  which  has  itself  made 
no  complaint.  It  is  certainly  gratifying  to  the 
friends  of  the  Administration  that  its  oppo¬ 
nents  are  driven  to  take  grounds  in  favor  of 
other  nations  against  our  own ;  there  is  little 
danger  that  an  opposition  so  unpatriotic  will 
find  favor  with  the  people. 

There  was  another  remark  of  the  Senator 
from  Massachusetts  yesterday  to  which  I  must 
refer.  He  is  answering  Senators  who  have 
ventured  to  defend  our  country,  and  he  does 
it  in  this  graphic  and  authoritative  manner  : 

“The  objection  of  Senators  is  too  much  like  the 
old  heathen  cry,  ‘Our  country,  right  or  wrong. 
Unhappy  words,  which  dethrone  God  and  exalt  the 
•Devil."  • 


Mr.  President,  if  any  man  be  authorized  to 
say  ex  cathedra  what  will  dethrone  goodness 
and  exalt  evil,  certainly  a  Senator  who  has 
for  two  years  been  engaged  in  devising  ways 
and  means,  been  employing  his  time,  energies, 
and  ability,  to  overthrow  a  good  Republican 
administration,  even  at  the  hazard  of  seeing 
it  succeeded  by  a  Democratic  administration, 
is  authorized  to  speak  to  that  point.  It 
is  in  keeping  with  this  proceeding,  which  is 
designed  to  dishonor  a  great  modern  mili¬ 
tary  chieftain,  that  it  should  be  supported  by 
theories,  illustrations,  and  arguments  which 
strike  down  the  fair  fame  of  a  great  naval 
commander  long  since  in  his  grave. 

Mr.  President,  the  name  and  fame  of  Stephen 
Decatur  are  a  glorious  part  of  our  national 
inheritance.  His  exploits  upon  the  sea  in  the 
infancy  of  the  Republic  were  familiar  to  school¬ 
boys  in  New  England  forty  years  ago ;  they 
were  told  in  our  school-books;  the  ships  of 
war  he  had  commanded  were  pictured  on  the 
pages  ;  we  saw  the  ships  sailing,  and  the  old 
flag  at  the  mast-head;  and  the  name  of  De¬ 
catur  was  repeated  by  fathers  anxious  to  nour¬ 
ish  the  patriotism  and  stimulate  the  ambition 
of  their  sons.  He  has  long  since  gone  U)  his 
reward,  but  his  memory  is  embalmed  in  the 
heart  of  the  nation.  And  yet,  sir,  we  have 
lived  to  hear  a  New  England  Senator,  in  mak¬ 
ing  an  assault  upon  General  Grant,  declare 
with  impartial  injustice  that  Stephen  Decatur 
was  an  old  heathen. 

Let  me  read  this  passage  of  the  Senator’s 
speech  again,  and  examine  the  justice  of  its 
bitter  but  unfounded  denunciation  : 

“The  objection  of  Senators  i3  too  much  like  the 
old  heathen  cry,  ‘  Our  country,  right  or  wrong.’ 
Unhappy  words,  which  dethrone  God  and  exalt  the 
Devil." 

It  is  barely  possible  that  the  patriotic  phrase, 
“Our  country,  right  or  wrong, ”  may  have 
inspired  some  unpleasant  reflections  in  that 
Senator’s  mind.  I  can  easily  imagine  that  if 
I  were  making  an  effort  in  this  body,  pro¬ 
tracted  through  weeks,  to  put  my  country  in 
the  wrong  and  subject  her  to  the  just  censure 
of  the  world,  I  should  not  sleep  quite  so 
soundly  after  this  phrase  had  been  rung  in 
my  ears.  But  I  think  I  would  not  comfort 
myself  by  declaring  or  even  believing  that 
Decatur  was  a  heathen  until  I  had  pretty 
carefully  considered  whether  this  phrase,  after 
all,  might  not  have  an  innocent  meaning  and 
be  reconcilable  with  the  sentiments  of  a 
Christian  gentleman. 

And  before  we  concur  with  the  Senator  in 
this  wholesale  denunciation,  let  us  examine 
what  is  meant  by  the  phrase  in  question.  No 
single  remark,  no  single  act  can  be  fairly  con¬ 
sidered  and  correctly  judged  of  without  taking 
into  account  its  surroundings  and  concomi¬ 
tants.  I  may  take  the  Bible  and  read  “  there 
is  no  God;”  but  if  I  examine  the  context,  I 
shall  find  that  the  inspired  writer  is  not  mak¬ 
ing  such  a  declaration,  but  that  he  ascribes  the 
thought  to  a  fool.  With  this  view  let  us  see 
exactly  the  circumstances  under  which  Com¬ 
modore  Decatur  made  use  of  the  phrase  which 


6 


Whig,  and  as  such  had  always  opposed  the 
domestic  policy  of  the  Democratic  party,  he 
said. : 

“There  was  never  an  election  contest  that  in  de¬ 
nouncing  the  particulars  of  its  policy  I  did  not 
admitthat  thecharacteristic  of  the  Democratic  party 
was  this:  that  it  had  burned  ever  with  that  great 
master-passion  this  hour  demands— a  youth! ul.vehe- 
ment, exultant,  and  progressive  nationality.  Through 
some  errors,  into  some  perils,  it  has  been  led  by  it; 
it  may  be  so  again;  we  may  require  to  temper  and 
restrain  it,  but  to-day  we  need  it  all,  we  need  it  all  I— 
the  hopes,  the  boasts,  the  pride,  tho  universal  toler- 
ence,  the  gay  and  festive  defianco  of  foreign  dictation, 
the  tiag,  the  music,  all  the  emotions,  all  the  traits,  all 
tho  energies,  that  have  won  their  victories  of  war 
and  their  miracles  of  national  advancement — the 
country  needs  them  all  now  to  win  a  victory  of 
peace.  That  done,  I  will  pass  again,  happy  and 
content,  into  that  minority  of  conservatism  in  which 
I  have  passed  my  life.” 

Assuming,  as  I  do,  that  this  great  impas¬ 
sioned  orator  did  no  more  than  justice  to  the 
Democratic  party  in  regard  to  its  intense  Ameri¬ 
can  feeling,  its  partisanship  for  our  own  country 
as  against  other  nations,  it  is  not  difficult  to  un¬ 
derstand  that  the  Democrats  in  this  Chamber, 
though  willing  to  see  the  Republican  party 
torn  asunder  by  internal  dissensions,  though 
beholding  with  pleasure  the  assault  now  being 
made  by  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts  [Mr. 
Sumner]  aud  the  Senator  from  Missouri  [Mr. 
Schurz]  upon  a  Republican  Administration, 
would  nevertheless  scorn  to  become  a  party 
to  an  assault  which  would  compel  them  to 
take  sides  with  another  Government  against 
our  own.  They  will  doubtless  circulate  the 
speeches  of  these  attacking  Senators,  but 
they  will  make  no  such  speeches  them¬ 
selves. 

The  Senator  from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  Sum¬ 
ner]  yesterday,  after  having  disposed  of  all 
that  had  been  said  by  Administration  Sena¬ 
tors  on  the  subject, by  pronouncing  it  “mere 
words,”  says:  “Now  let  us  put  words  aside 
and  come  to  things;”  and  then  the  Senator 
took  up  his  written  speech  and  proceeded  to 
deliver  it.  Coming  to  the  pretended  facts  of 
the  case,  he  says: 

“  The  case  naturally  opens  with  the  resolution  of 
tho  committee  of  the  French  Assembly.” 

Yes,  sir,  the  case  naturally  opened  in  France. 
And  it  is  to  be  regretted  that  propriety  had  not 
been  observed,  and  the  case  been  permitted  to 
close  in  France.  It  is  a  humiliating  spectacle, 
an  American  Senate  made  the  forum  for  pre¬ 
senting  complaints  against  our  own  country  in 
favor  of  a  foreign  nation  which  has  itself  made 
no  complaint.  It  is  certainly  gratifying  to  the 
friends  of  the  Administration  that  its  oppo¬ 
nents  are  driven  to  take  grounds  in  favor  of 
other  nations  against  our  own  ;  there  is  little 
danger  that  an  opposition  so  unpatriotic  will 
find  favor  with  the  people. 

There  was  another  remark  of  the  Senator 
from  Massachusetts  yesterday  to  which  I  must 
refer.  He  is  answering  Senators  who  have 
ventured  to  defend  our  country,  and  he  does 
it  in  this  graphic  and  authoritative  manner  : 

“The  objection  of  Senators  is  too  much  like  tho 
old  heathen  cry,  ‘Our  country,  right  or  wrong.’ 
Unhappy  words,  which  dethrono  God  and  exalt  tho 
Devil. 


Mr.  President,  if  any  man  be  authorized  to 
say  ex  cathedra  what  will  dethroue  goodness 
and  exalt  evil,  certainly  a  Senator  who  has 
for  two  years  been  engaged  in  devising  ways 
and  means,  been  employing  his  time,  energies, 
and  ability,  to  overthrow  a  good  Republican 
administration,  even  at  the  hazard  of  seeing 
it  succeeded  by  a  Democratic  administration, 
is  authorized  to  speak  to  that  point.  It 
is  in  keeping  with  this  proceeding,  which  is 
designed  to  dishonor  a  great  modern  mili¬ 
tary  chieftain,  that  it  should  be  supported  by 
theories,  illustrations,  and  arguments  which 
strike  down  the  fair  fame  of  a  great  naval 
commander  long  since  in  his  grave. 

Mr.  President,  the  name  and  fame  of  Stephen 
Decatur  are  a  glorious  part  of  our  national 
inheritance.  His  exploits  upon  the  sea  in  the 
infancy  of  the  Republic  were  familiar  to  school¬ 
boys  in  New  England  forty  years  ago;  they 
were  told  in  our  school-books;  the  ships  of 
war  he  had  commanded  were  pictured  on  the 
pages  ;  we  saw  the  ships  sailing,  and  the  old 
flag  at  the  mast-head;  and  the  name  of  De¬ 
catur  was  repeated  by  fathers  anxious  to  nour¬ 
ish  the  patriotism  and  stimulate  the  ambition 
of  their  sous.  He  has  long  since  gone  to  his 
reward,  but  his  memory  is  embalmed  in  the 
heart  of  the  nation.  And  yet,  sir,  we  have 
lived  to  hear  a  New  England  Senator,  in  mak¬ 
ing  an  assault  upon  General  Grant,  declare 
with  impartial  injustice  that  Stephen  Decatur 
was  an  old  heathen. 

Let  me  read  this  passage  of  the  Senator’s 
speech  again,  and  examine  the  justice  of  its 
bitter  but  unfounded  denunciation  : 

“The  objection  of  Senators  i3  too  much  like  the 
old  heathen  cry,  ‘Our  country,  right  or  wrong.’ 
Unhappy  words,  which  dethrone  God  and  exalt  the 
Devil.” 

It  is  barely  possible  that  the  patriotic  phrase, 
“Our  country,  right  or  wrong,”  may  have 
inspired  some  unpleasant  reflections  in  that 
Senator’s  mind.  I  can  easily  imagine  that  if 
I  were  making  an  effort  in  this  body,  pro¬ 
tracted  through  weeks,  to  put  my  country  in 
the  wrong  and  subject  her  to  the  just  censure 
of  the  world,  I  should  not  sleep  quite  so 
soundly  after  this  phrase  had  been  rung  in 
my  ears.  But  I  think  I  would  not  comfort 
myself  by  declaring  or  even  believing  that 
Decatur  was  a  heathen  until  I  had  pretty 
carefully  considered  whether  this  phrase,  after 
all,  might  not  have  an  innocent  meaning  and 
be  reconcilable  with  the  sentiments  of  a 
Christian  gentleman. 

And  before  we  concur  with  the  Senator  in 
this  wholesale  denunciation,  let  us  examine 
what  is  meant  by  the  phrase  in  question.  No 
single  remarkj  no  single  act  can  be  fairly  con¬ 
sidered  and  correctly  judged  of  without  taking 
into  account  its  surroundings  and  concomi¬ 
tants.  I  may  take  the  Bible  and  read  “  there 
is  no  God;”  but  if  I  examine  the  context,  I 
shall  find  that  the  inspired  writer  is  not  mak¬ 
ing  such  a  declaration,  but  that  he  ascribes  the 
thought  to  a  fool.  With  this  view  let  us  see 
exactly  the  circumstances  under  which  Com¬ 
modore  Decatur  made  use  of  the  phrase  which 


4 


troubles  the  Senator  and  has  driven  him  to 
ronounce  it  heathenish.  In  a  life  of  Decatur 
find  the  following : 

“In  the  succeeding  month  of  April  professional 
duties  called  Decatur  to  Norfolk,  tne  birthplace  of 
Mrs.  Deoatur,  where  they  had  resided  several  years, 
and  where  they  were  welcomed  by  a  large  circle  of 
attached  friends.  The  gentlemen  of  the  place  eagerly 
took  advantage  of  this  opportunity  to  meet  him  in  a 
general  reunion  at  the  social  board.  Among  the 
appropriate  sentiments  which  the  occasion  called 
forth,  were  the  following: 

“  ‘  The  Mediterranean;  the  sea  not  more  of  Greek 
and  Roman  than  of  American  glory.’  *  Thecrescent; 
our  stars  have  dimmed  its  luster.’  ‘  National  glory ; 
a  gem  above  all  price,  and  worthy  every  hazard  to 
sustain  its  splendor.’  Decatur  responded  with  a 
sentiment  which  has  since  become  memorable.” 

(This  author  was  not  aware  that  it  was 
heathenish !) 

*“Our  country;  in  her  intercourse  with  foreign 
nations,  may  she  always  be  in  tho  right;  but  our 
country,  rigls^^^wrong.’  May  it  ever  remain  tho 
rallying  cry  of  iotism  throughout  the  land  ;  not 
tho  least  valuble  of  the  legacies  left  by  Decatur  to 
his  countrymen.” 

The  Senator  says,  11 1  am  for  our  country 
with  the  aspiration  that  it  may  be  always 
right but  I  am  for  nothing  wrong.”  It  is  as¬ 
tonishing  how  much  depends  upon  the  wa-y  in 
which  you  state  a  thing.  I  want  to  call  atten¬ 
tion  to  this  famous  toast  of  Decatur,  and  point 
out  what  I  understand  it  to  mean,  and  then  I 
want,  with  that  interpretation,  to  commend  it 
to  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts. 

In  the  first,  place,  he  was  speaking  at  the 
festive  board  where  good  feeling  prevailed, 
and  where  his  friends  and  neighbors  had  met 
to  do  him  honor.  He  was  speaking  not  of  the 
internal  affairs  of  our  nation,  but  of  our  inter¬ 
course  with  foreign  nations.  He  was  respond¬ 
ing  to  the  toast  “  National  glory;  a  gem  above 
all  price,  and  worthy  every  hazard  to  sustain 
its  splendor.”  That  toast  must  have  called 
to  the  old  commodore’s  mind  the  achieve¬ 
ments  of  himself  and  his  brave  companions 
on  the  seas.  He  must  have  thought  of  the 
old  ship  in  which  he  had  sailed,  of  the  flag 
always  waving  over  them ;  and  speaking  of 
the  intercourse  of  our  country  with  other 
nations,  he  says: 

“Our  country;  in  her  intercourse  with  foreign 
nations  may  she  always  bo  in  the  right  ” — 

So  far.  the  Senator  approves  it,  and  hopes 
she  always  will  be  in  the  right — 

“but  out  country,  right  or  wrong.” 

The  Senator  says  he  cannot  subscribe  to  that, 
because  he  cannot  subscribe  to  anything  wrong ! 
But  does  not  the  Senator  perceive  that  there  is 
an  important  question  back  of  this,  namely, 
who  is  to  determine  whether  our  country  be 
right  or  wrong?  The  United  States  has  about 
forty  millions  of  people.  Now,  suppose  our, 
country,  the  forty  millions  of  its  people  unan¬ 
imously — save  that  the  Senator  from  Massa¬ 
chusetts  dissents — determine  that  it  is  right  to 
pursue  a  certain  line  of  foreign  policy,  or  sup¬ 
pose  that  this  people,  by  its  representative,  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States,  passes  judg¬ 
ment  upon  a  certain  controversy  between  us 
and  England,  that  we  are  right  and  England 


wrong,  and  declare  war  to  enforce  the  right  ? 
Now  the  question  is,  whether  the  Senator 
from  Massachusetts,  an  individual  citizen  of 
the  United  States,  may  resolve  himself  into  a 
court  of  review,  and  reverse  the  determination 
of  the  nation  in  regard  to  the  rights  of  the 
nation ;  and  thereupon  determine  that  he 
cannot  support  what  is  wrong,  and  proceed  to 
oppose  his  own  country.  The  Senator  may 
reply,  that  in  determining  what  is  right  and 
what  is  wrong  every  individual  must  exercise 
his  judgment  in  obedience  to  his  conscience. 
Undoubtedly,  so  far  as  his  conduct  as  an  indi¬ 
vidual  in  matters  of  faith  and  Christian  con¬ 
duct  is  concerned.  I  am  not  discussing  the 
relations  of  a  man  to  his  Maker  from  a  stand¬ 
point  of  high  ethics  or  religion.  I  am  not 
saying  that  as  an  individual  Christian  he  may 
not  when  smitten  upon  one  cheek  turn  the 
other  also.  But  I  am  speaking  of  the  relar 
tions  of  a  citizen  to  the  Government  which 
affords  him  protection,  and  to  which  he  owes 
allegiance. 

The  doctrine  of  non-resistance,  however 
sound  as  a  principle  of  religious  faith,  and 
however  it  may  be  binding  upon  the  indi¬ 
vidual  conscience  in  matters  affecting  the 
individual  only,  has  not  been  ingrafted  upon 
the  law  of  nations ;  and  no  nation  can  exist 
which  recognizes  the  right  of  one  of  its  citizens 
to  be  at  peace  when  it  is  at  war,  or  to  take 
sides  with  its  enemy  in  time  of  war.  They  who 
enjoy  the  protection  of  civil  government  are 
bound  to  sustain  that  government  when^in 
peril,  and  any  man  who  caunot  conscientiously 
do  this  must  abjure  and  depart  from  civilized 
society,  dress  in  goat  skins,  and  dwell  in  the 
wilderness. 

It  is  manifest  that  if  a  citizen  may  overrule 
and  disregard  the  judgment  of  the  community 
of  which  he  is  a  member ;  if  he  may  interpose 
his  individual  private  judgment  against  the 
deliberate  and  pronounced  judgment  of  the 
nation ;  if  in  a  particular  instance,  in  which 
his  native  country  is  engaged  in  war  to  enforce 
what  it  has  determined  to  be  right,  a  citizen 
may  dissent  from  that  judgment  aud  contend 
against  his  country,  then  he  may  carry  that 
opposition  to  the  extent  of  taking  up  arms 
against  his  country.  The  doctrine  ofthe  Sena¬ 
tor  from  Massachusetts  condemns  the  Consti¬ 
tution  of  his  country,  and  all  the  well-settled 
maxims  of  every  Christian  country  upon  this 
subject. 

it  is  evident  that  Decatur  entertained  differ¬ 
ent  sentiments,  and  spoke  from  a  different 
stand-point.  The  sentiment  which  the  Sen¬ 
ator  from  Massachusetts  has  so  bitterly  con¬ 
demned  was  uttered  by  a  great  naval  com¬ 
mander  in  the  presence  of  a  party  of  friends 
assembled  to  honor  him  for  his  glorious  ex- 

{ doits  in  foreign  seas.  And  it  may  safely  be 
eft'  to  the  people  to  determine  whether*  he 
expressed  sentiments  worthy  of  a  great  naval 
officer,  worthy  of  every  citizen  of  every 
Christian  country,  or  a  sentiment  which  proves 
him  to  have  been  a  heathen. 

Mr.  SUMNER.  The  Senator  does  not  ini' 
agiue  aDy  such  case  is  before  us  no-w. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/salesofarmstofreOOcarp 


7 


troubles  the  Senator  and  has  driven  him  to 
rononnce  it  heathenish.  In  a  life  of  Decatur 
find  the  following : 

“In  the  succeeding  month  of  April  professional 
duties  called  Decatur  to  Norfolk,  the  birthplace  of 
Mrs.  Decatur,  where  they  had  resided  several  years, 
and  where  they  were  welcomed  by  a  large  circle  of 
attached  friends.  The  gentlemen  ofthe  place  eagerly 
took  advantage  of  this  opportunity  to  meet  him  in  a 
general  reunion  at  the  social  board.  .Among  the 
appropriate  sentiments  which  the  occasion  called 
forth,  were  the  following: 

“  ‘  The  Mediterranean;  the  sea  not  more  of  Greek 
and  Roman  than  of  American  glory.’  *  The  crescent ;  i 
our  stars  have  dimmed  its  luster.’  ‘  National  glory ; 
a  gem  above  all  price,  and  worthy  every  hazard  to 
sustain  its  splendor.’  Decatur  responded  with  a 
sentiment  which  has  since  become  memorable.” 

(This  author  was  not  aware  that  it  was 
heathenish !) 

‘“Our  country;  in  her  intercourse  with  foreign 
nations,  may  she  always  be  in  the  right;  but  our 
country,  right  or  wrong.’  May  it  ever  remain  the 
rallying  cry  of  patriotism  throughout  the  land  ;  not 
the  least  valuble  of  the  legacies  left  by  Decatur  to 
his  countrymen.” 

•  The  Senator  says,  "I  am  for  our  country 
with  the  aspiration  that  it  may  be  always 
right ;  but  I  am  for  nothing  wrong.”  It  is  as¬ 
tonishing  how  much  depends  upon  the  wary  in 
which  you  state  a  thing.  I  want  to  call  atten¬ 
tion  to  this  famous  toast  of  Decatur,  and  point 
out  what  I  understand  it  to  mean,  and  then  I 
want,  with  that  interpretation,  to  commend  it 
to  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts. 

Iu  the  first  place,  he  was  speaking  at  the 
festive  board  where  good  feeling  prevailed, 
d  where  his  friends  and  neighbors  had  met 
to  do  him  honor.  Ho  was  speaking  not  of  the 
i  >!  ei  lal  affair’s  of  ur  i  ation,  but  :  v 
course  with  foreign  nations.  He  was  respond 
ii.g  to  the  toast  '  National  glory;  a  gem  above 
ail  price,  and  worthy  ovary  hazard  to  sustain 
its  splendor.”  That  toast  must  have  called 
to  the  old  com  lore’s  mind  the  achieve  ■ 
ments  of  himself  and  his  brave  companions 
on  the  seas.  lie  must  have  thought  of  the 
old  ship  in  which  he  had  sailed,  of  the  flag 
always  waving  over  them ;  and  speaking  of 
the  intercourse  of  our  country  with  other 
nations,  he  says : 

“Our  country;  in  her  hiterccursa  with  foreign 

nations  may  she  always  be  in  the  right  ” — 

So  for  the  Senator  approves  it,  and  hopes 
si.  c  al  way  a  will  be  in  the  right —  , 

“  but  our  country,  id:,  it  or  wrong.” 

The  Senator  sn;  s  Ls  cannot;  subscribe  to  that, 
be  cause  he  cannot :  Aivhbe  >  anything  v;  t  ou'  •  l 
But  dees  not  the  de  udeer  pcvecivo  that  ih.wba 
an  important  question  back  of  this,  namely, 

who  is  to  determine  whether  our  country  be 
right  or  wrong?  Tho  United  States  has  about 
forty  millions  of  people.  Now,  suppose  our 
country,  the  forty  millions  of  its  people  unan¬ 
imously — save  that  the  Senator  from  Massa¬ 
chusetts  dissents — determine  that  it  is  right  to 
pursue  a  certain  line  of  foreign  policy,  or  sup¬ 
pose  that  this  people,  by  its  representative,  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States,  passes  judg¬ 
ment  u-pon  a  certain  controversy  between  us 
and  England,  that  we  are  right  and  England 


wrong,  and  declare  war  to  enforce  the  right  ? 
Now  the  question  is,  whether  the  Senator 
freftn  Massachusetts,  an  individual  citizen  of 
the  United  States,  may  resolve  hitnself  into  a 
court  ot  review,  and  reverse  the  determination 
of  the  nation  in  regard  to  the  rights  of  the 
nation ;  and  thereupon  determine  that  he 
cannot  support  what  is  wrong,  and  proceed  to 
oppose  his  own  country.  The  Senator  may 
reply,  that  in  determining  what  is  right  and 
what  is  wrong  every  individual  must  exercise 
!  his  judgment  in  obedience  to  his  conscience. 
Undoubtedly,  so  far  as  his  conduct  as  an  indi¬ 
vidual  in  matters  of  faith  and  Christian  con¬ 
duct  is  concerned.  I  am  not  discussing  the 
relations  of  a  man  to  his  Maker  from  a  stand¬ 
point  of  high  ethics  or  religion.  I  am  not 
saying  that  as  an  individual  Christian  he  may 
not  when  smitten  upon  one  cheek  turn  the 
other  also.  But  I  am  speaking  of  the  rela¬ 
tions  of  a  citizen  to  the  Government  which 
affords  him  protection,  and  to  which  he  owes 
allegiance. 

Tne  doctrine  of  non-resistance,  however 
sound  as  a  principle  of  religious  faith,  and 
however  it  may  be  binding  upon  the  indi¬ 
vidual  conscience  in  matters  affecting  the 
individual  only,  has  not  been  ingrafted  upon 
the  law  of  nations ;  and  no  nation  can  exist 
which  recognizes  the  right  of  one  of  its  citizens 
to  be  at  peace  when  it  is  at  war,  or  to  take 
I  sides  with  its  enemy  in  time  of  war.  They  who 
I  enjo3r  the  protection  of  civil  government  are 
[  bound  to  sustain  that  government  when  in 
i  perii,  and  any  man  who  cannot  conscientiously 
|  do  tins  must  abjure  and  depart  from  civilized 
j  moiety,  dress  in  goat  skins,  and  dwell  in  the 
j  wilderness. 

It  is  manifest  that  if  a  citizen  may  overrule 
oral  disregard  the  judgment  ofthe  community 
of  which  lie  is  a  member;  if  he  may  interpose 
his  individual  private  judgment  against  the 
deliberate  and  pronounced  judgment  of  the 
nation;  if  in  a  particular  instance,  in  which 
his  native  country  is  engaged  in  war  to  enforce 
what  it  has  determined  to  be  right,  a  citizen 
may  dissent  from  that  judgment  and  contend 
against  his  country,  then  he  may  carry  that 
opposition  to  the  extent  of  taking  up  arms 
j  against  his  country.  The  doctrine  ofthe  Sena 

temns  the  Consti¬ 
tution.  of  his  country,  and  all  the  well-settled 
maxims  of  every  Christian  country  upon  this 
subject. 

It  is  evident  that  D<  catur  entertained  differ- 
?  i  eatim^nts,  and  ol  fi  >.  di 
stand-point.  The  sentiment,  which  the  Sen¬ 
ator  from  Massachusetts  has  so  bitterly  cou- 
i  doomed  wsn  uttered  by  a  great  naval  com-, 
j  mender  in  tka  pres  ence  of  a  parly  of  friends 
I  assembled  to' honor  him  for  his-  glorious  ex¬ 
ploits  in  foreign  seas.  And  it  may  safely  be 
left  to  the  people  to  determine  whether  he 
expressed  sentiments  worthy  of  a  great  naval 
officer,  worthy  of  every  citizen  of  every 
Christian  country,  or  a  sentiment  which  proves 
him  to  have  been  a  heathen. 

Mr.  SUMNER.  The  Senator  does  not  im¬ 
agine  any  such  case  is  before  us  flow. 


8 


Mr.  CARPENTER.  No ;  I  have  tried  to  || 
show  that  there  was  not  any  particular  case  j 
before  us  that  called  for  the  criticism  which  | 
the  Senator  passed  upon  Commodore  Decatur,  j 
Commodore  Decatur  was  not  on  trial  by  im-  ! 
peachment. 

Mr.  SUMNER.  I  made  no  allusion  to  j 
Commodore  Decatur. 

Mr.  CARPENTER.  That  is  a  species  of 
argument  that  would  a  great  deal  better  be¬ 
come  some  other  men  that  1  know  of  than  the 
Senator  from  Massachusetts.  Here  is  a  phrase 
coined  by  Commodore  Decatur  which  has 
passed  with  commendation  from  that  time  to 
this.  The  Senator  quotes  it,  and  in  his  re¬ 
ported  speech  puts  it  in  quotation  marks, 
and  then  pronounces  it  a  heathen  sentiment. 

Mr.  SUMNER.  Because  it  has  become  a 
common-place  of  vicious  politics.  I  did  not 
attribute  it  to  Commodore  Decatur.  The  Sen  j 
ator  arrays  the  history  and  shows  the  sur¬ 
roundings  with  which  he  originally  uttered  it. 

1  took  it  as  it  is  afloat  everywhere,  a  vicious 
sentiment,  to  be  denounced,  not  to  be  de¬ 
fended  by  any  Senator. 

Mr.  CARPENTER.  That  explanation  of 
it  makes  the  Senator’s  remark  entirely  proper ;  ! 
for  if  there  was  any  subject  that  ever  was  all  j 
afloat  it  is  the  preamble  of  the  Senator’s  reso-  | 
lution,  [laughter;]  and  anything  which  is! 
afloat  also  properly  belongs  to  it,  and  is  en-  ' 
tirely  germane  to  it.  [Laughter.]  I  will,  j 
therefore,  pass  the  Senator’s  criticism  upon  j 
this  sentiment.,  crediting  the  Senator  with  I 
having  given  the  best  apology  for  it  that  he  j 
could  give.  The  phrase  is  all  afloat,  and  so  is  ! 
his  preamble  ;  let  them  float  together. 

Mr.  President,  the  principal  motive  I  had  in 
addressing  the  Senate  at  all  this  morning  was 
to  call  attention  to  the  precise  question  of  in¬ 
ternational  law  that  is  involved  in  the  floating 
preamble  of  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts. 
That  preamble  assumes,  and  the  debate  of 
Opposition  Senators  supporting  it  has  pro¬ 
ceeded  upon  the  assumption,  that  if  the  United 
States  sold  these  arms  to  France,  or  to  any 
agent  of  France,  knowing  him  to  be  such, 
that  was  a  violation  of  the  law  of  nations. 

I  repeat,  the  friends  of  the  Administration 
did  not  choose  at  that  point  to  raise  the  legal 
question,  but  preferred  to  concede  that  it  was 
so,  and  to  meet  the  resolution  by  showing  that 
the  facts  alleged  did  not  exist.  That  has  been 
triumphantly  done.  It  may,  however,  be  im¬ 
portant  that,  before  this  debate  closes,  atten¬ 
tion  should  be  directed  to  the  principle  of 
international  law  involved.  Nothing  can  be 
called  trivial  which  affects  the  international 
relations  of  a  great  people.  The  principles 
wc  recognize  here  by  concessions  in  debate 
may  come  back  to  trouble  us  in  future  years  ; 
and  I  desire  here  to  say,  without  intending  to 
prejudice  any  Alabama  claim,  that  since  1861 
the  passion,  the  agony  of  this  nation  has  driven 
us  into  extreme  grounds  against  the  rights  of 
neutral  nations ;  and  our  later  writers,  the 
American  authors  who  are,  I  believe,  the  only 
ones  who  give  any  support  to  the  docrine  of 
the  Senator  from  Massachusetts,  have  been  j 


impelled  to  the  extreme  verge  of  doctrine  by 
the  circumstances  in  which  the  nation  has 
been  placed. 

I  never  sympathized  with  that  motive.  I 
never  thought  it  wise  for  us  with  a  view  to  get 
a  few  million  pounds  sterling  more  or  less 
from  England  to  abandon  the  high  ground 
which  we  ought  to  take  as  to  the  rights  of 
neutral  nations. 

In  1868,  after  the  close  of  our  war,  when  the 
Government  had  a  large  supply  of  arms  on 
hand,  Congress  passed  the  law  which.has  been 
frequently  read  : 

“  That  the  Secretary  of  War  be,  and  he  is  hereby, 
authorized  and  directed  ” — 

Thus  leaving  no  discretion  with  him— 

“  to  cause  to  be  sold,  after  offer  at  public  sale  cn 
thirty  days’  notice,  in  such  manner  and  at  such 
times  and  places  at  public  or  private  sale  as  he  may 
deem  most  advantageous  to  the  public  interest,  the 
old  cannon,  arms,  and  other  ordnance  stores  now  in 
possession  of  the  War  Department,  which  are 
damaged  or  otherwise  unsuitable  for  the  United 
States  military  service.”  &c. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  evident  from  this  aev 
that  Congress  was  speaking  of  arms  that  could 
be  sold.  In  other  words,  by  styling  them 
“unsuitable  arms”  it  was  not  intended  to 
advertise  in  advance  that  they  were  useless 
arms.  These  arms  were  not  condemned  by 
this  act;  the  Secretary  was  not  directed,  as  it 
was  said  yesterday,  to  sell  these  arms  for  old 
iron,  nor  to  destroy  them,  or  abandon  them. 
He  was  directed  to  sell  them.  Therefore,  by 
the  word  “unsuitable”  it  cannot  be  under¬ 
stood  that  Congress  intended  in  advance  to 
advertise  them  as  useless,  but,  as  was  so  well 
said  by  the  Seuator  from  Iowa  [Mr.  Harlax] 
yesterday — who  always  goes  into  a  discussion 
of  a  legal  question  by  announcing  that  be  is 
not  a  lawyer  and  then  immediately  proceeds 
to  contradict  himself  by  showing  that  he  is  ; 
for,  of  all  the  preachers  of  the  Gospel  I  ever 
heard,  he  speaksmost  like  a  lawyer  thoroughly 
grounded  and  bottomed  in  legal  principles  and 
familiar  with  all  the  statutes  ;  I  have  never 
known  him  fire  amiss  on  a  legal  question — he 
says  that  back  as  far  as  1825  we  had  an  act  of 
Congress  which  directed  the  sale  of  arms.  J 
was  not  aware  of  that ;  but  it  is  all  the  better 
for  the  point  I  now  wish  to  make.  From  1825, 
then,  down  to  the  present  time  it  has  been  the 
policy  of  our  Government,  as  I  believe  it  has 
been  the  policy  of  all  Governments,  to  dispose 
of  those  arms  which  were  unsuitable  in  the 
sense  that  more  suitable  weapons  could  be 
found.  In  1868  this  act  was  passed  to  enlarge 
the  scope  of  the  former  law,  as  the  Senator  in¬ 
formed  us  yesterday,  and  to  make  it  impera¬ 
tive  on  the  Secretary  of  War  to  sell. 

In  1868,  (starting  with  that  statute,  if  there 
had  been  no  other  on  the  subject,)  no  war 
existed  between  France  and  Germany;  none 
was  apprehended.  We  all  know  that  in  1870 
when  the  war  was  declared  it  came  like  a  thun¬ 
der-bolt  from  a  clear  sky  upon  the  whole  civil¬ 
ized  world.  Not  thirty  days  before  war  broke 
out,  did  any  man  in  the  United  States  anticipate 
it?  This  statute  was,  therefore,  passed,  not 
with  reference  to  any  particular  nation,  or  to 


9 


take  advantage  of  the  emergency  of  any  par-  j 
ticular  nation  created  by  a  particular  war.  or  j 
the  market  which  a  particular  war  would  fur-  ; 
nish;  but  the  United  States  announced  and  j 
declared  its  policy  to  dispose  of  arms  unsuit-  j 
able  in  the  sense  before  mentioned.  In  1868,  i 
after  the  passage  of  this  act,  during  the  entire  j 
year  1869,  and  in  the  spring  of  1870,  it  was  j 
perfectly  legitimate  and  lawful  for  the  United 
States  to  sell  those  arms  to  Louis  Napoleon 
directly  and  deliver  them  to  him  in  the  city  of 
Washington,  and  the  question  now  is  whether 
after  war  was  declared  between  France  and  i 
Germany  in  the  summer  of  1870  we  as  a  nation  j 
were  precluded  from  carrying  out  our  own  pol-  j 
icy  in  the  disposition  of  our  own  property,  | 
and  that  is  the  precise  question. 

There  are  several  principles  here  from  which 
we  may  gain  some  light,  applying  their  analo¬ 
gies  to  this  case.  It  is  well  settled  by  the  law 
of  nations  that  if  one  nation  be  under  obliga¬ 
tion  by  treaty  with  another,  it  will,  in  case 
that  other  shall  be  at  war,  furnish  a  certain 
number  of  ships  of  war,  or  such  a  supply  of 
troops,  of  arms,  or  of  ammunition,  the  sub¬ 
sequent,  execution  of  that  covenant  by  the 
nation  after  a  war  has  broken  out,  does  not 
violate  her  neutral  obligations.  Why?  Be¬ 
cause  she  is  performing  a  duty  which  she  un¬ 
dertook  at  a  time  when  there  was  no  war,  and 
when  she  could  not  have  intended  any  harm 
to  the  particular  opposing  belligerent.  Trea¬ 
ties  of  this  kind  are  frequently  made.  The  j 
first  treaty.  I  believe,  ever  made  by  the  United  | 
States,  the  old  treaty  between  us  and  France, 
secured  to  France  exclusive  privileges  in  our 
ports  in  case  of  a  war  between  her  and  any 
other  nation;  and  in  Dana’s  edition  of' Whea¬ 
ton’s  International  Law,  section  four  hun¬ 
dred  and  twenty-five,  it  is  said : 

“Another  case  of  qualified  neutrality  arises  out 
of  treaty  stipulations  antecedent  to  the  commence¬ 
ment  of  hostilities,  by  which  the  neutral  may  be 
bound  to  admit  the  vessels  of  war  of  one  of  the  bel¬ 
ligerent  parties,  with  their  prizes,  into  his  ports, 
while  those  of  the  other  may  be  entirely  excluded, 
or  only  admitted  under  limitations  and  restrictions. 
Thus,  by  the  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce  of  1778, 
between  the  United  States  and  France,  the  latter 
secured  to  herself  two  special  privileges  in  the 
American  ports:  first,  admission  for  her  priva¬ 
teers  with  their  prizes,  to  the  exclusion  of  her  ene¬ 
mies;  second,  admission  for  her  public  ships  of  war 
in  case  of  urgent  necessity  to  refresh,  victual,  re¬ 
pair,  &c.,  but  not  exclusively  of  other  nations  at  war 
with  her.  Under  these  stipulations,  the  United  States 
not  being  expressly  bound  to  exclude  the  public  ships 
of  the  enemies  of  France,  granted  an  asylum  to  Brit¬ 
ish  vessels  and  those  of  other  Powers  at  war  with  her. 
Great  Britain  and  Holland  still  complained  of  the 
exclusive  privileges  allowed  to  France  in  respect  to 
her  privateers  and  prizes,  while  France  herself  was 
pot  satisfied  with  the  interpretation  of  the  treaty  by 
which  the  public  ships  of  her  enemies  were  admit¬ 
ted  into  the  American  ports.  To  the  former,  it  was 
answered  by  the  American  Government  that  they 
enjoyed  a  perfect  equality,  qualified  only  by  the 
exclusive  admission  of  the  privateers  and  prizes  of 
France,  whicu  was  the  effect  of  a  treaty  made  long 
before,  for  valuable  considerations,  not  with  a  view 
to  oircumstances,  such  as  had  occurred  in  the  war  of 
the  French  revolution,  nor  against  any  nation  in 
particular,  but  against  all  nations  in  general,  and 
which  might,  therefore,  be  observed  without  giving 
just  offense  to  any.” 

That  was  the  ground  assumed  by  our  Gov¬ 


ernment  in  the  letter  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  then 
Secretary  of  State,  to  Mr.  Hammond  and 
others.  This  principle  applies  to  the  case  in 
hand. 

A  nation  may  furnish  supplies  to  another 
nation  and  send  them  ships  of  war  and  troops 
if  prior  to  the  breaking  out  of  the  war  she  had 
bound  herself  by  treaty  to  do  so;  and  the 
philosophy  of  this  is  that  in  her  subsequent 
performance  of  this  contract  she  evinces  no 
hostile  purpose,  no  design  to  injure  the  nation 
against  which  they  may  be  used.  She  made 
the  treaty,  not  knowing  what  nation  they  would 
be  used  against.  She  cannot  therefore  be  held 
to  have  had  any  hostile  purpose.  Now  the 
philosophy  of  that  rule  is  equally  applicable 
to  this  statute.  A  statute  made  in  1868,  when 
no  human  being  anticipated  a  war  between 
France  and  Germany,  cannot  beheld  to  evince 
any  intention  on  the  part  of  the  United 
States  to  take  part  against  Germany.  It  simply 
announces  the  purpose  of  the  United  States  to 
dispose  of  these  arms. 

Now  the  question  is,  whether  the  United 
States. had  a  right  to  do  so  after  the  war  com¬ 
menced.  In  time  of  peace  it  is  not  denied; 
but  the  question  is,  whether,  having  com¬ 
menced  the  disposition  of  these  arms  in  1868, 
and  continued  it  at  intervals  as  often  as  pur¬ 
chasers  came,  the  United  States  were  com 
pelled  to  stop  that  traffic  in  1870  when  the  war 
broke  out  between  France  and  Germany. 

Mr.  SHERMAN.  May  I  interrupt  my  hon¬ 
orable  friend,  rather  in  aid  of  his  argument,  to 
read  to  him  the  law  of  1825,  under  which, 
without  respect  to  the  statute  now  discussed, 
no  doubt  the  President  of  the  United  States 
could  sell  these  arms  whenever  in  his  judg¬ 
ment  they  were  unsuitable  for  the  public  ser¬ 
vice  ?  That  law  is  still  the  law.  It  is  the  aet 
of  March  3,  1825 : 

“That  the  President  of  the  United  States  be,  and 
he  is  hereby,  authorized  to  cause  to  be  sold  any 
ordnance,  arms,  ammunition,  or  other  stores,  or 
subsistence  or  medical  supplies,  which,  upon  proper 
inspection  or  survey,  shall  appear  to  bo  damaged  or 
otherwise  unsuitable  for  the  public  service,  when¬ 
ever,  in  his  opinion,  the  sale  of  such  unserviceable 
stores  will  be  advantageous  to  the  public  service.” 

The  only  difference  between  the  law  com¬ 
mented  upon  now  and  the  law  of  1825  was 
that  in  this  case  the  sale  must  be  made  at  pub¬ 
lic  sale,  and  also  it  must  be  after  inspection 
by  public  officers.  The  law  of  1868  simply 
repealed  these  two  restrictions. 

Mr.  CARPENTER.  I  thank  my  friend  for 
the  interruption  and  for  the  reference  to  the 
statute.  I  now  repeat  that  this  policy  of  the 
country,  as  shown  by  these  statutes,  to  dispose 
of  arms  unsuitable,  in  the  sense  referred  to, 
was  a  settled  policy  of  this  Government  prior 
to  the  breaking  out  of  the  war  between  Germany 
and  France  ;  and  in  that  light  we  come  to  con¬ 
sider  whether  the  breaking  out  of  a  war  between 
these  two  nations  suspended  our  right  to  do 
what  we  could  have  done  prior  to  that  time. 

The  Senator  from  Massachusetts,  in  the  first 
speech  he  made  on  the  subject,  referred  to 
certain  authorities  which,  in  my  judgment,  do 


10 


not  bear  out  the  distinction  which  he  makes. 
He  quotes  from  Wheaton  these  words: 

“  To  give  no  assistance  where  there  is  no  previous 
stipulation  to  give  it,  nor  voluntarily  to  furnish 
troops,  arms,  ammunition,  or  anything  of  direct  use 
in  war.” 

Vattel,  as  quoted  then,  says: 

‘‘I  do  not  say  to  give  assistance  equally,  but  to 
give  no  assistance,  for  it  would  be  absurd  that  a 
State  should  assist  at  the  same  time  two  enemies.” 

Then  he  quotes  from  Halleck  substantially 
the  same  language  in  two  or  three  different 
places.  Now,  the  distinction  which  is  to  be 
observed  here  is  this:  the  nation  here  spoken 
of  embarks  in  the  enterprise  of  “sending” 
arms  to  another  nation 'for  the  purpose — that 

is,  with  the  intention — of  enabling  it  to  use 
those  arms  against  a  nation  then  at  war  with 

it.  That  cannot  be  done,  because  that  is  tak¬ 
ing  part  in  the  war. 

But  in  all  these  quotations  they  speak  of  one 
nation  “  sending”  arms  to  another,  not  selling 
them,  but  “sending”  them.  Now,  what  are 
we  to  understand  by  a  nation  “  sending  ”  arms 
to  another?  Why,  loaning  them,  furnishing 
them  at  our  own  expense.  That  is  the  sense 
in  which  I  think  all  these  authors  upon  the 
subject  speak.  After  reading  these  quota¬ 
tions  the  Senator  concludes : 

“  There  is  the  true  principle.  In  sending  men  or 
war  materials  he  takes  part  in  the  war.” 

That  is  exactly  the  principle.  If  we  send, 
if  we  furnish,  if  we  give  to  France  arms,  ships, 
troops,  munitions  of  war,  for  the  purpose  of 
enabling  her  to  wage  her  contest  against  Prus¬ 
sia,  we  take  part  with  her;  we  become  a  party 
to  the  war;  we  violate  our  neutral  obligations. 

The  Senator  then  quotes  a  case  which,  if  it 
was  a  case,  would  be  directly  applicable ;  that 
is,  the  sale  of  ships  by  the  Swedish  Govern¬ 
ment,  and  the  Spanish  protest  in  1825.  The 
Senator  read  here  the  note  of  protest  by  the 
Spanish  diplomat  to  the  Government  of  Swe¬ 
den,  protesting,  in  what  the  Senator  called  very 
energetic  language,  that  the  act  was  wrong. 
The  Senator  did  not  inform  the  Senate  what 
reply  the  Swedish  Government  made  or  whether 
it  made  any,  nor  do  I  know.  He  did  not  state 
to  the  Senate  whether  the  Swedish  Govern¬ 
ment  admitted  the  grounds  assumed  by  the 
Spanish  Government  and  made  reparation. 
He  does  not  say  that  Spain  took  up  arms  to 
enforce  her  theory,  but  he  reads  here  an  angry 
protest  from  the  diplomatic  agent  of  Spain 
against  this  act,  as  authority  on  the  law  of 
nations!  Why,  Mr.  President,  you  might 
just  as  well  read  the  brief  of  a  lawyer  on  one 
side  of  an  important  litigation  in  the  Supreme 
Court  as  determining  what  the  law  of  the  case 
is,  as  to  read  this  protest  of  the  Spanish  min¬ 
ister,  made  in  his  own  interest  and  under  the 
excitement  and  pressure  of  war,  to  determine 
what  the  law  of  nations  is  ! 

We  have  a  notable  illustration  of  this  in  our 
history.  During  the  rebellion  in  Hungary,  our 
Government  sent  a  private  agent  to  examine 
into  the  true  state  of  that  rebellion,  with  a 
view,  I  suppose,  of  recognizing  either  their 
independence  or  their  belligerent  rights.  That 


agent  went  there,  performed  his  duty,  returned, 
bringing  back  discouraging  intelligence,  upon 
which  the  Government  became  satisfied  that 
no  action  could  be  based  in  favor  of  Hungary ; 
and  there  the  matter  rested  until  at  the  next 
session  of  Congress  the  President  seut  his 
message,  which  informed  Congress  that  he  had 
sent  such  an  agent  there.  Mr.  Hulseman,  the 
minister  of  Austria  at  that  time  in  Washington, 
wrote  to  our  Government  a  very  strong  note, 
protesting  against  that  as  a  violation  of  our 
neutral  duties  and  an  act  unfriendly  to  Aus¬ 
tria.  Mr.  Webster  took  up  that  letter  and  in 
that  controversy  he  acquired  one  of  those  nice 
little  “victories  of  peace”  which  our  Govern¬ 
ment  is  justly  proud  of.  He  left  nothing  of 
Mr.  Hulseman’ s  protest,  and  Austria  made  no 
further  complaint. 

Now,  suppose  that  in  France  or  Germany 
or  Italy  some  man  wanting  to  know  what  the 
law  of  nations  was  on  that  subject  should  read 
Mr.  Hulseman’ s  letter  to  our  Secretary  of 
State,  and  either  not  find  or  suppress  Mr. 
Webster’s  reply,  would  that  protest  settle  the 
law  of  nations?  Therefore,  I  say  this  sale  of 
ships  by  Sweden  is  entirely  aside.  There  is 
nothing  of  it  except  the  protest  made  by  Spain 
in  angry  mood  against  the  act ;  no  admission 
on  the  part  of  Sweden,  that  we  know  of,  that 
she  was  wrong  or  that  the  protest  was  right. 

The  Senator  from  Massachusetts  concluded 
his  first  speech  by  saying: 

“Since  the  case  of  the  Swedish  ships,  I  know  no 
instance  where  a  nation  has  been  called  in  question 
for  selling  arms  to  a  belligerent.  For  the  first  time 
has  the  United  States  within  my  knowledge  fallen 
under  suspicion  of  violating  the  requirement  of  neu 
trality  on  this  subject.  Such  seems  to  be  our  present 
position.  W e  are  under  suspicion.” 

I  would  not  charge  the  Senator  from  Massa¬ 
chusetts  with  being  artful  in  any  unparliament¬ 
ary  sense,  but  I  may  say  that  that  is  one  of 
the  most  artful  dodges  that  rhetoric  could 
possibly  suggest.  He  commenced  his  speech 
by  saying  that  somebody  in  France  suspected 
that  somebody  in  America  had  cheated  France 
in  this  transaction — a  mere  suspicion  of  cheat¬ 
ing  in  dollars  and  cents  in  the  purchase  of 
certain  arms.  He  concludes  his  speech,  and 
having  his  fancy  inflamed  with  the  terrible  con¬ 
dition  of  the  nation  being  under  suspicion  of 
having  some  man  in  its  whole  forty  million 
people  who  would  cheat,  he  transfers  that 
suspicion  over  to  the  subject  of  neutrality,  and 
says  :  “  we  are  under  suspicion  of  having  vio¬ 
lated  our  neutral  obligations.”  Nobody  sus¬ 
pects  us  of  having  done  it  that  we  know,  ex¬ 
cept  the  Senators  who  support  this  preamble. 
There  is  no  pretense  here  that  France  suspects 
it;  no  pretense  that  Prussia  does  ;  no  pretense 
that  it  is  suspected  by  anybody  except  these 
Senators. 

Now,  let  us  examine  for  a  few  moments  the 
authorities  upon  this  subject,  and  I  shall  do  so 
as  briefly  as  possible.  In  the  first  place,  I  will 
refer  to  Woolsey,  who,  I  think,  goes  further 
than  any  other  writer  to  sustain  the  view  of 
tho  Senator  from  Massachusetts.  He* is  an 
American  writer,  and  the  first  edition  of  his 


11 


work  was  published,  I  think,  in  I860.  Then 
I  shall  refer  to  Halleck,  the  first  edition  of 
whose  works  was  published  in  1861.  Woolsey, 
at  page  262,  says : 

“A  neutral  State  is  one  which  sustains  the  rela¬ 
tions  of  amity  to  both  the  belligerent  parties,  or 
negatively  is  a  non  hostis,  as  Bynkershoek  has  it, 
one  which  sides  with  neither  party  in  a  war.” 

“There  are  degrees  of  neutrality 

I  want  to  call  the  Senator  from  Massachu¬ 
setts  to  the  distinction  here  made — 

“strict  neutrality  implies  that  a  State  stands  en¬ 
tirely  aloof  from  the  operations  of  war,  giving  no 
assistance  or  countenance  to  either  belligerent. 
Imperfect  neutrality  may  be  of  two  kinds:  it  may 
bo  impartial,  inasmuch  as  both  belligerents  have 
equal  liberty  to  pursue  the  operations  of  war,  or 
certain  operations,  such  as  transit  of  troops,  pur¬ 
chase  of  military  stores,  enlistments  of  soldiers  or 
seamen,  within  the  neutral  territory.” 

Again,  on  page  246,  he  says : 

“The  principles  from  which  we  start  seem  to  be 
clear  enough;  at  the  same  time,  for  the  reason  that 
neutrality  is  a  thing  of  degrees,  and  that  the  prac¬ 
tice  of  nations  has  been  shifting,  it  is  a  little  difficult 
to  lay  down  with  precision  the  law  of  nations  in 
regard  to  it  as  it  is  at  present  understood.  That  law 
seems  to  be  tending  toward  strict  neutrality.” 

Here  it  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  this 
author  is  speaking  not  with  that  precision 
which  characterizes  a  writer  on  municipal  law, 
stating  affirmatively  what  the  law  is  as  settled 
by  the  adjudication  of  the  courts.  He  cannot 
do  that.  There  are  no  means  of  arriving  with 
such  certainty  at  what  the  law  of  nations  is, 
and  here  is  one  of  the  difficulties  that  every 
man  wishing  to  study  this  or  any  other  topic 
under  the  law  of  nations  has  to  encounter : 
that  every  book  he  takes  up  is  more  an  essay 
on  the  ethics  of  the  subject,  than  a  statement  of 
what  has  been  universally  recognized  or  agreed 
upon.  Indeed,  there  are  few  things  that  have 
been  universally  agreed  upon,  very  few  things 
that  are  to-day  unanimously  assented  to  by 
the  nations  of  the  earth.  The  author  proceeds: 

“A  just  war  being  undertaken  to  defend  rights, 
each  sovereignty  must,  as  we  have  seem,  decide  for 
itself  whether  its  war  be  just  and  expedient.  It  fol¬ 
lows  that  Powers  not  parties  to  the  war  must  treat 
both  belligerents  alike  as  friends.  Hence  no  priv¬ 
ilege  can  be  granted  or  withheld  from  one  and  not 
equally  from  the  other.  Thus,  if  transit,  or  the  en¬ 
trance  into  harbors  of  ships  of  war,  for  the  purpose 
of  refitting  or  of  procuring  military  supplies,  or  the 
admission  of  captured  prizes  and  their  cargoes,  is 
allowed  to  the  one  belligerent,  the  other  may  claim 
it  also.  Otherwise  a  State  aids  one  of  its  friends  in 
acts  of  violence  against  another,  which  is  unjust,  or 
aids  a  friend  in  fighting  against  another  party,  which 
is  to  be  an  ally  and  not  a  neutral.” 

And  again  : 

“  But  the  rule  of  impartiality  is  not  enough.  The 
notion  of  neutrality,  to  say  nothing  of  the  conven¬ 
ience  of  the  neutral  and  his  liability  to  be  drawn 
into  the  war,  demands  something  more.  It  is  not 
an  amicable  act  when  I  supply  two  of  my  friends 
with  the  means  of  doing  injury,  provided  I  do  as 
much  for  one  as  for  the  other.  Such  a  relation  is 
not  that  of  a  medius  inter  hostes,  but  of  an  impartial 
enemy,  of  a  jack  on  both  sides.  Moreover,  it  is 
impartiality  in  form  only,  when  I  give  to  two  par¬ 
ties  rights  within  my  territories,  which  may  be  im- 

tortant  for  the  one  and  useless  to  the  other.  The 
nited  States  in  a  war  between  Great  Britain  and 
Prussia  might  allow  both  parties  to  enlist  troops 
within  its  borders  ;  but  what  would  such  a  privilege 
be  worth  to  Russia?  And,  indeed,  almost  every 
privilege  conceded  by  neutrals  would  be  apt  to 
inure  more  to  the  benefit  of  one  than  of  the  other 
of  two  hostile  nations.  A  rule  of  greater  fairness 


would  be  to  allow  nothing  to  the  belligerents  which 
either  of  them  would  object  to  as  being  adverse  to 
his  interests;  but  this  rule  would  be  subjective, 
fluctuating,  and  probably  impracticable.  A  rule, 
again,  expressive  of  strict  neutrality,  would  pro¬ 
hibit  the  neutral  from  rendering  any  service  spe¬ 
cially  pertaining  to  war,  or  allowing  his  territory  to 
be  used  for  any  military  purpose  by  either  belliger¬ 
ent.  This,  if  we  add  the  qualification,  ‘unless  en¬ 
gagements  previous  to  the  war  concede  some  special 
assistance  to  one  of  the  parties,  which  assistance  is 
not  of  importance  enough  to  convert  a  neutral  into 
an  ally,’  would  nearly  express  what  is  the  present 
law  and  usage  of  nations.” 

It  is  evident,  I  think,  that  this  author  is 
maintaining  a  theory  which  he  thinks  ought  to 
be  the  law  of  nations  ;  rather  predicting  what 
it  will  be  in  the  good  time  coming,  than  as¬ 
serting  what  is  the  law  of  nations  to-day. 

Next,  Martens’  Law  of  Nations.  I  have 
Cobbett’s  edition,  at  page  820: 

"Of  the  Obligations  of  Neutrality —To  observe  an 
entire  neutrality,  a  State  must,  first,  abstain  from 
all  participation  in  warlike  expeditions;  second, 
it  must  grant  or  refuse  nothing  to  one  of  the  bel¬ 
ligerent  Powers  which  may  be  useful  or  necessary 
to  such  Power  in  prosecuting  the  war  without  grant¬ 
ing  or  refusing  it  to  the  adverse  pary :  or,  at  least,  it 
must  not  establish  an  inequality  in  order  to  favor  one 
of  the  parties  more  than  the  other. 

“  The  moment  a  neutral  Power  deviates  from  these 
rules  its  neutrality  is  no  longer  entire,  but  limited; 
and,  indeed,  though  neutral  States  sometimes  prom¬ 
ise  more,  and  enter  into  a  sort  of  conventional  neu¬ 
trality,  a  limited  neutrality  is  all  that  the  laws  of 
neutrality  impose.” 

Now,  take  this  author  in  connection  with 
what  Woolsey  says:  neutrality  is  a  thing  of 
degrees;  he  says  strict  neutrality  would  pre¬ 
vent  your  selling  to  either  party  ;  aud  limited 
neutrality,  under  the  head  of  “impartiality,” 
which  is  one  of  his  subdivisions  of  limited 
neutrality,  will  permit  that,  provided  it  is  done 
to  both  nations  alike.  If  your  pretended  sale 
is  in  bad  faith,  if  you  make  it  a  mere  cloak  and 
pretext  for  taking  sides  in  the  war,  selling  at 
a  particular  juncture  when  your  sale  will  ben¬ 
efit  only  one  party,  or  if  in  any  other  way  you 
intend — and  it  is  all  a  question  of  intention — 
to  give  aid  in  the  war,  you  become  a  party  to 
it ;  but  if. abstaining  from  such  act,  and  having 
no  such  intention,  you  lawfully  pursue  your 
own  business,  as  we  were  doing  under  these 
statutes,  it  .  is  preposterous  to  say  we  were 
taking  part  in  the  war  against  Germany. 

Again,  section  four: 

“  Every  sovereign  has  a  right,  in  time  of  peace,  to 
grant  or  refuse  to  another  Power  the  liberty  of  rais¬ 
ing  troops  in  his  territory,  or  of  marching  a  body  of 
troops  into  or  through  his  territory;  and  may  grant 
to  one  Power  what  he  refuses  to  another.  In  time 
of  war  he  may  do  the  same.  He  has  a  right  to  grant 
or  refuse  to  the  belligerent  Powers,  and  observe  the 
same  inequality  toward  them  as  he  did  in  time  of 
peace,  without  thereby  deviating  from  the  senti¬ 
ments  of  impartiality  that  ought  to  be  entertained 
by  every  neutral  Power.” 

What  does  he  mean  by  this?  He  is  refer¬ 
ring  back  to  the  exception  made  in  the  law  of 
nations  where  a  nation  has  entered  into  a 
treaty  before  the  war  to  furnish  another  nation 
certain  ships  or  supplies  in  case  of  a  war,  and 
that  treaty  it  may  make  with  any  nation.  We 
may  make  such  a  treaty,  if  we  please,  with 
Mexico,  and  refuse  to  make  it  with  England. 
That  is  no  cause  of  offense  to  England  ;  and 
if  war  cfomes  between  Mexico  and  England 


12 


we  may  do  the  same  thing,  because  we  are  j 
exercising  the  same  right  we  exercised  before  | 
the  war,  and  not  taking  sides  with  either  party  | 
by  doing  what  we  have  a  right  to  do.  This  is 
going  much  further  than  is  necessary  to  main¬ 
tain  my  proposition  ;  perhaps  further  than  the 
other  writers  justify. 

Yattel,  at  page  340,  says  : 

“A  neutral  nation  preserves,  toward  both  the 
belligerent  Powers,  the  several  relations  which 
nature  has  instituted  between  nations.  She  ought 
to  show  herself  ready  to  render  them  every  office  of 
humanity  reciprocally  due  from  one  nation  to 
another;  she  ought  in  everything  not  directly  relat¬ 
ing  to  war  to  give  them  all  the  assistance  in  her 
power,  and  of  which  they  may  stand  in  need.  Such 
asssistancc,  however,  must  be  given  with  impar¬ 
tiality;  that  is  to  say,  she  must  not  refuse  anything 
to  one  of  the  parties  on  account  of  his  being  at  war 
with  the  other.” 

But  you  may  refuse  to  enter  into  a  treaty 
with  one  nation  to  furnish  supplies  in  case  she 
shall  be  engaged  in  war.  You  cannot,  how¬ 
ever,  after  the  war  has  been  declared  enter 
into  such  a  treaty  with  one  nation  and  deny  it 
to  the  other,  because  that  is  taking  sides  with 
one  nation  against  the  other,  and  that  is  the 
distinction  between  the  cases.  The  author 
proceeds : 

“But  this  is  no  reason  why  a  neutral  State,  under 
particular  connections  of  friendship  and  good  neigh¬ 
borhood  with  one  of  the  belligerent  Powers,  may 
not,  in  everything  that  is  unconnected  with  war, 
grant  him  all  those  preferences  which  are  due  to 
friends;  much  less  does  she  afford  any  grounds  of 
exception  to  her  conduct,  if,  in  commerce,  for  in¬ 
stance,  she  continues  to  allow  him  such  indulgences 
as  have  been  stipulated  in  her  treaties  with  him. 
She  ought,  therefore,  as  far  as  the  public  welfare 
will  permit,  equally  to  allow  the  subjects  of  both 
parties  to  visit  her  territories  on  business,  and  there 
to  purchase  provisions,  horses,  and  in  general  every¬ 
thing  they  stand  in  need  of— unless  she  has  by  a 
treaty  of  neutrality  promised  to  refuse  to  both  par¬ 
ties  such  articles  as  are  used  in  war.  Amid  all  the 
wars  which  disturb  Europe,  the  Switzers  preserve 
their  territories  in  a  state  of  neutrality.  Every 
nation'indiscriminately  is  allowed  free  access  for  the 
purchase  of  provisions,  if  the  country  has  a  surplus, 
and  for  that  of  horses,  ammunition,  and  arms.” 

But  now  I  come,  in  Vattel,  which  I  cite,  page 
234,  section  one  hundred  and  ten,  to  the  precise 
point  which  I  have  been  endeavoring  to  estab¬ 
lish,  drawing  the  distinction  which  1  maintain 
exists  between  a  nation  pursuing  the  line  of  its 
own  policy  inaugurated  during  a  peace,  even 
past  the  time  when  war  breaks  out,  and  the 
creation  of  a  new  policy  pending  a  war  which 
is  to  have  the  effect  to  turn  the  scale  between 
two  contending  nations : 

“First,  no  act  on  the  part  of  a  nation,  which 
falls  within  the  exercise  of  her  rights,  and  is  done 
solely  with  a  view  to  her  own  good,  without  par-  I 
tiality,  without  a  design  of  favoring  one  Power  to 
the  prejudice  of  another — no  act  of  that  kind,  I 
say,  can  in  general  be  considered  as  contrary  to 
neutrality  ;  nor  does  it  become  such,  except  on  par¬ 
ticular  occasions,  when  it  cannot  take  place  without 
injury  to  one  of  the  parties,  who  has  then  a  particu¬ 
lar  right  to  oppose  it.  Thus,  the  besieger  has  aright 
to  prohibit  access  to  the  place  besieged,  (see  section 
one  hundred  and  seventeen  in  the  sequel.)  Except 
in  cases  of  this  nature,  shall  the  quarrels  of  others 
deprive  me  of  the  free  exercise  of  my  rights  in  the 
pursuit  of  measures  which  I  judge  advantageous  to 
my  people?  Therefore,  when  it  is  the  custom  of  a 
nation,  for  the  purpose  of  employing  and  training 
her  subjects,  to  permit  levies  of  troops  in  favor  of  a 
particular  Power  to  whom  she  thinks  proper  to  in¬ 
trust  them,  the  enemy  of  that  Power  cannot  look 


upon  such  permissions  as  acts  of  hostility,  unless 
they  are  given  with  a  view  to  the  invasion  of  his 
territories  or  the  support  of  an  odious  and  evidently 
unjust  cause.  He  cannot  even  demand,  as  matter 
of  right,  that  the  like  favor  be  granted  to  him,  be¬ 
cause  that  nation  may  have  reasons  for  refusing 
him  which  do  not  hold  good  with  regard  to  his 
adversary;  and  it  belongs  to  that  nation  alone  to 
judge  of  what  best  suits  her  circumstances.  The 
Switzers,  as  we  have  already  observed,  grant  levies 
of  troops  to  whom  they  please;  and  no  Power  has 
hitherto  thought  fit  to  quarrel  Avith  them  on  that 
head.  It  must,  however,  be  owned” — 

Now  he  comes  back  to  ethics  and  not  to  law, 
because  no  such  case  has  ever  arisen — 

“That  if  those  levies  were  considerable  and  consti¬ 
tuted  the  principal  strength  of  my  enemy,  Avhile, 
Avithout  any  substantial  reason  being  alleged,  I  were 
absolutely  refused  all  levies  Avhatever,  I  should  have 
just  cause  to  consider  that  nation  as  leagued  Avith  my 
enemy;  and  in  this  case  the  care  of  my  own  safety 
would  authorize  me  to  treat  her  as  such . 

"The  case  is  the  same  Avith  respect  to  money 
which  a  nation  may  have  been  accustomed  to  lend 
out  at  interest.” 

I  wish  to  call  special  attention  to  the  point 
made  here  by  all  these  authorities.  The  whole 
subject  seems  to  be  one  of  good  faith.  If  a 
nation  has  been  accustomed  to  lend  a  fund  of 
money;  for  instance,  if  we  bad  $100,000,000 
set  apart  as  an  educational  fund  to  lend  to  the 
States  of  the  Union  or  to  foreign  nations  in¬ 
differently,  and  had  been  accustomed  to  loan 
that  money  for  years  for  interest,  we  might 
have  lent  it  either  to  France  or  Germany  dur¬ 
ing  the  war.  Let  me  read  that  again  : 

“  The  case  is  the  same  with  respect  to  money  which 
a  nation  may  have  been  accustomed  to  lend  out  at 
interest.  If  the  sovereign,  or -his  subjects,  lend 
money  to  my  enemy  on  that  footing,  and  refuse  it  to 
me  because  they  have  not  the  same  confidence  in 
me,  this  is  no  breach  of  neutrality.” 

In  other  words  the  point  of  loaning  money 
to  one  nation  and  refusing  to  loan  it  to  the 
other  must  rest  on  the  ground  that  such  dis¬ 
crimination  is  dictated  only  by  the  prudence 
of  the  nation  making  the  loan  ;  it  must  be  a 
case  where  the  investment  is  made  iu  one 
case  and  denied  in  the  other  for  prudential 
reasons  touching  our  own  interests,  and  not 
in  bad  faith,  and  from  a  desire  and  with  a 
design  to  take  part  in  the  war.  The  intention 
settles  the  legality  or  illegality  of  the  trans¬ 
action.  If  this  country  chooses  to  loan  money, 
and  loans  it  to  a  belligerent,  because  it  wants 
to  loan  it,  without  any  intention  to  prejudice 
the  other  party  beyond  what  necessarily  results 
from  loaning  money,  it  may  do  so.  Vattel 
says : 

“They  lodge  their  property  where  they  think  it 
safest.  If  such  preference'ba  not  founded  on  good 
reasons’’— 

Here  he  comes  back  to  the  precise  point — 
“I  may  impute  it  to  ill-will  against  me,  or  to  a  pred¬ 
ilection  for  my  enemy.  Yet  if  I  should  make  it  a 
pretense  for  declaring  war,  both  the  true  principles 
of  the  laAv  of  nations  and  the  general  custom  hap¬ 
pily  established  in  Europe  would  join  in  condemn¬ 
ing  me.  While  it  appears  that  this  nation  lends  out 
her  money  purely  for  the  sake  of  gaining  an  interest 
upon  it,  she  is  at  liberty  to  dispose  of  it  according 
to  her  own  discretion;  and  I  have  no  right  to  com¬ 
plain.” 

It  will  be  seen  that  this  author  fully  recog¬ 
nizes  the  right  of  any  neutral  nation  to  prose¬ 
cute  the  same  measures  of  internal  adminis¬ 
tration  pending  a  war  between  other  nations 


13 


that  it  was  accustomed  to  before  the  war  broke 
out.  If  we  had  a  fund  of  money  to  lend,  if 
we  had  ships  and  ammunition  to  sell  long 
before  this  war  commenced,  and  were  loaning 
the  money  and  were  selling  these'ships,  then 
our  continuing  to  do  so  in  good  faith,  without 
any  intention  thereby  to  become  a  party  to  or 
to  turn  the  scale  between  those  two  nations, 
violates  no  principle  of  the  law  of  nations,  as 
Vattel  says,  and  gives  no  cause  of  complaint. 
Then  he  proceeds: 

“But  if  the  loan  were  evidently  granted  for  the 
purpose  of  enabling  an  enemy  to  attack  me,  this 
would  be  concurring  in  the  war  against  me. 

“If  the  troops  above  alluded  to  were  furnished 
to  my  enemy  by  the  State  herself,  and  at  her  own 
expense,  or  the  money  in  like  manner  lent  by  the 
State,  without  interest,  itwouldno  longer  be  a  doubt¬ 
ful  question  whethersuch  assistance  were  incompati¬ 
ble  with  neutrality.”  • 

Why?  Because  if  she  was  accustomed  to 
loan  money  upon  interest,  and  in  case  of  war 
should  loan  her  money  to  one  of  the  Powers 
without  interest,  she  thereby  changes  her  policy 
and  shows  her  intention  to  influence  the  strife 
that  is  in  progress  between  those  Powers. 
Then  the  question  of  intention  is  settled  by 
the  circumstances  of  the  case  against  the 
neutral. 

“  Further,  it  may  bo  affirmed  on  the  same  princi¬ 
ples,  that  if  a  nation  trades  in  arms,  timber  for  ship¬ 
building,  vessels,  and  warlike  stores,  I  cannot  take 
it  amiss  that  she  sells  such  things  to  my  enemy,  pro¬ 
vided  she  does  not  refuse  to  sell  them  to  me  also  at 
a  reasonable  price.  She  carries  on  her  trade  without 
any  design  to  injure  me;  and  by  continuing  in  the 
same  manner  as  if  I  were  not  engaged  in  war,  she 
gives  me  no  just  cause  of  complaint.” 

Yattel  then  proceeds  in  section  one  hundred 
and  eleven  to  the  case  of  a  neutral  nation  re¬ 
sorting  to  a  belligerent  country  forcommercial 
purposes : 

“  In  what  I  have  said  above,  it  is  supposed  that  my 
enemy  goes  himself  to  a  neutral  country  to  make 
his  purchases.  Let  us  now  discuss  another  case, 
that  of  neutral  nations  resorting  to  my  enemy’s 
country  for  commercial  purposes.  It  is  certain,  as 
they  have  no  part  in  my  quarrel,  they  are  under  no 
obligation  to  renounce  their  commerce  for  the  sake 
of  avoiding  to  supply  my  enemy  with  the  means  of 
carrying  on  the  war  against  me.  Should  they  affect 
to  refuse  selling  me  a  single  article,  while  at  the 
same  time  they  take  pains  to  convey  an  abundant  sup¬ 
ply  to  my  enemy,  with  an  evident  intention  to  favor 
him,  such  partial  conduct  would  exclude  them  from 
the  neutrality  they  enjoyed.  But  if  they  only  con¬ 
tinue  their  customary  trade,  they  do  not  thereby 
declare  themselves  against  any  interest,  they  only 
exercise  a  right  which  they  are  under  no  obligation 
of  sacrificing  to  me. 

“  On  the  other  hand,  whenever  I  am  at  war  with 
a  nation,  both  my  safety  and  welfare  prompt  mo  to 
deprive  her,  as  far  as  possible,  of  everything  which 
may  enable  her  to  resistor  injure  me.  In  this  in¬ 
stance  the  law  of  necessity  exerts  its  full  force.  If 
that  law  warrants  me,  on  occasion,  to  seize  what 
belongs  to  other  people,  will  it  not  likewise  warrant 
me  to  intercept  everything  belonging  to  war  which 
neutral  nations  are  carrying  to  my  enemy?  Even 
if  I  should,  by  taking  such  measures,  render  all 
those  neutral  nations  my  enemies,  I  had  better  run 
that  hazard  than  suffer  him  who  is  actually  at  war 
with  me  thus  freely  to  receive  supplies,  and  collect 
additional  strength  to  opposo  me.  It  is  therefore 
very  proper,  and  perfectly  conformable  to  the  law 
of  nations  (which  disapproves  of  multiplying  tho 
causes  of  war)  not  to  consider  those  seizures  of  tho 
goods  of  neutral  nations  as  acts  of  hostility. 

“  When  I  have  notified  to  them  my  declaration 
of  war  against  such  or  such  a  nation,  if  they  will 
afterward  expose  themselves  to  risk  in  supplying 


her  with  such  things  which  serve  to  cany  on  war, 
they  will  have  no  reason  to  complain  if  their  goods 
fall  into  my  possession,  and  I,  on  the  other  hand,  do 
not  declare  war  against  them  for  having  attempted 
to  convey  such  goods.  They  suffer,  indeed,  by  a  war 
in  which  they  have  no  concern  ;  but  they  suffer 
accidentally.  I  do  not  oppose  their  right.  I  only 
exert  my  own;  and  if  our  rights  clash  with  and  re¬ 
ciprocally  injure  each  other,  that  circumstance  is 
the  effect  of  inevitable  necessity.  Such  collisions 
daily  happen  in  war.  When,  in  pursuance  of  my 
rights,  I  exhaust  a  country  from  which  you  derive 
your  subsistence,  when  I  besiege  a  city  with  which 
you  carried  on  a  profitable  trade,  I  doubtless  injure 
you  ;  I  subject  you  to  losses  and  inconveniences,  but 
it  is  without  any  design  of  hurting  you.  I  only 
make  use  of  my  rights,  and  consequently  do  you  no 
inj  ustice.” 

It  i3  evident,  I  think,  that  Yattel  does  not 
support  the  distinction  made  by  the  Senator 
from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  Sumner]  between  a 
sale  of  goods  contraband  of  war,  made  by  the 
sovereign,  or  one  which  is  permitted  by  the 
sovereign  to  be  made  by  his  subjects.  Sup¬ 
pose  a  nation  to  be  engaged  in  the  manufac¬ 
ture  of  arms,  and  to  have  been  so  engaged  for 
a  series  of  years,  selling  them  to  other  nations. 
The  question  is  whether,  after  a  war  breaks 
out  between  two  other  nations,  to  both  of 
whom  she  has  sold  arms  for  years,  she  is  for¬ 
bidden  to  continue  such  sale,  taking  of  course 
the  risk  of  such  arms  being  intercepted  and 
treated  as  contraband.  The  fact  is,  the  writers 
on  the  law  of  nations — that  is,  the  old  stand¬ 
ard  authors — recognize  the  right  of  neutrals  to 
trade  ia  contraband  with  tho  belligerent,  but 
also  recognize  the  right  of  one  belligerent  to 
prevent  the  advantage  which  would  be  enjoyed 
by  its  opponent  from  the  purchase,  by  seizing 
and  confiscating  the  contraband  articles.  Our 
modern  writers  have  tried  to  eliminate  this 
conflict  of  rights  and  criticise  these  rules  by  a 
principle  which  is  sound  in  municipal  law,  that 
one  cannot  have  a  right  to  do  what  another 
has  a  right  to  prevent.  Hence  the  conclusion 
that  trade  in  articles  contraband  is  illegal,  and 
although  it  is  admitted  that  the  sovereign  of  a 
neutral  nation  may  permit  his  subjects  to  carry 
on  such  trade,  he  cannot  do  so  himself. 

But  it  is  difficult  to  perceive  how  it  can  be 
innocent  in  a  sovereign  to  permit  his  subjects 
to  do  what  is  in  violation  of  the  law  of  nations 
without  incurring  censure.  A  more  satisfac¬ 
tory  solution  would  seera  to  be  that  the  prin¬ 
ciple  of  municipal  law  above  mentioned  has 
no  place  in  a  code  which  applies  to  parties — 
sovereign  nations — which  acknowledge  no  com¬ 
mon  superior  ;  and  that  it  necessarily  results 
|  that  each  may  exercise  its  right ;  that  is,  the 
neutral  sovereign  may  carry  on  his  accustomed 
trade  with  a  belligerent,  subject  to  the  same 
contingency  that  applies  to  such  traffic  when 
conducted  by  his  subjects,  that  the  prop¬ 
erty  will  be  lost  if  it  fall  into  the  power  of  the 
opposing  belligerent.  And  although  I  do  not 
speak  with  confidence,  not  having  examined 
as  to  this  point  particularly,  because  it  is  not 
involved  in  the  case  before  us,  yet  my  impres¬ 
sion  is  that  no  writer  on  the  law  of  nations  of 
fifty  years  standing  recognizes  any  such  dis¬ 
tinction  against  the  sovereign  of  a  neutral 
State.  And  no  writer  can  be  considered  as  an 
authority  upon  the  law  of  nations  whose  work 


14 


has  not  stood  the  test  of  time  and  enjoyed  the 
approving  assent  of  the  nations. 

Mr.  President,  I  claim  that  these  authorities 
establish  the  doctrine  which  I  have  attempted 
to  maintain,  that  the  Government  of  the  Uni¬ 
ted  States  having,  from  1825  to  the  present 
time,  in  peace  and  war,  sold  its  unsuitable 
arms,  and  having  in  1868  by  this  mandatory 
statute  commanded  the  Secretary  of  War  to 
sell  them,  long  before  any  war  was  anticipated 
or  existed,  and  subsequently  the  Secretary  of 
War  having  merely  obeyed  this  act  iu  the  sale 
of  these  arms,  I  believe  that  if  he  had  sold 
them  in  the  city  of  Washington  to  Louis  Napo¬ 
leon,  and  delivered  them  to  him  personally,  it 
would  have  been  no  violation  of  our  neutral 
obligations.  I  have  desired  to  present  this 
subject  because  of  the  importance  it  may  have 
in  the  subsequent  history  of  this  country. 

Mr.  President,  we  are  a  great  nation  ;  we  are 
advancing  to  the  forefront  among  the  Powers 
of  the  earth  ;  we  cannot  always  be  at  peace, 
and  we  shall  not  always  be  at  war  ;  but  it  is  im¬ 
portant  to  us  as  a  nation  that  in  all  these  par¬ 
ticulars  we  should  vindicate  sound  doctrine, 
that  we  should  stand  by  the  law  of  nations,  and 
stand  by  all  the  principles  and  all  the  excep¬ 
tions  as  well  as  the  rules,  that  hereafter  we 
may  be  at  liberty  to  take  our  proper  ground 
under  the  laws  of  nations  to  protect  our  rights. 

There  are  special  reasons  why  this  country 
should  maintain  such  a  doctrine.  Here  we 
are  with  laws  that  permit  the  subjects  of  all 
foreign  nations  to  become  citizens  of  the  Uni¬ 
ted  States  by  our  easy  naturalization  process. 
We  have  German  citizens  and  English  citi¬ 
zens,  Irish  citizens,  French  citizens,  Italians, 
and  will  soon  have  from  all  the  nations  of  the 
earth.  Everybody  now,  I  believe,  can  come 
here  except  the  Chinese ;  the  negroes  from 
central  Africa  can  come  here  and  be  natural¬ 
ized  in  five  years.  Now,  see  what  will  result  if 
we  do  not  stand  by  this  doctrine.  These  mil¬ 
itary  stores  and  arms,  of  course,  will  only  be 
sold  to  be  used  in  war ;  that  everybody  knows. 
They  cannot  be  sold  for  any  other  purpose. 
When  arms  become  unsuitable  in  the  sense  of 
this  statute,  they  will  not  be  bought  by  a  pri¬ 
vate  gentleman  for  sporting  purpQses.  That 
is  not  the  object.  They  will  be -sold  when 
some  great  war  creates  a  demand  for  them, 
and  not  otherwise  ;  and  while  they  may  be 
unsuitable  for  us  in  a  time  of  peace  and 
within  the  meaning  of  this  statute,  they  may 
be  very  useful  to  a  nation  which  must  have 
them  or  fare  worse.  As  was  well  said  by  the 
Senator  from  Iowa  yesterday,  a  flint-lock  mus¬ 
ket  would  be  very  unsuitable  now  for  us;  but 
if  we  had  nothing  better  it  would  have  to  serve 
our  purpose.  So  would  a  pitchfork,  or  a  scythe, 
o-r  a  club,  or  a  carving-knife,  anything  which 
will  let  blood  is  better  than  nothing  in  a  con¬ 
test  where  blood  must  be  let. 

Suppose  a  war  breaks  out  to-morrow  between 
France  and  England,  another  between  Austria 
and  Germany,  another  between  Italy  and  Tur¬ 
key,  here  we  have  in  our  ranks  subjects  from 
every  one  of  those  nations;  here  we  have  men 
in  full  citizenship,  and  may  have  them  from 


every  one  of  those  nations  in  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States.  Is  it  to  be  tolerated  by 
Americans  that  we,  because  we  have  these 
different  classes  of  citizens,  are  to  pursue 
another  course  than  we  otherwise  would? 
Such  a  doctrine  cannot  be  tolerated,  because 
it  would  lead  to  great  embarrassment.  Men 
of  these  nationalities  come  here  and  are  ad¬ 
mitted  to  citizenship  upon  the  theory  that  they 
renounce  in  fact  as  well  as  form  all  allegiance 
to  their  own  country,  and  cast  their  lot  with  us  ; 
their  interests  the  same  with  ours,  their  rights 
the  same  under  our  Constitution.  The  national 
policy  which  is  good  for  the  American  is  good 
for  the  German  citizen  ;  and  here  he  is  an 
American,  no  longer  a  German. 

Whatever  policy  America  should  adopt  to¬ 
ward  Germany  is  g,s  much  for  the  interest  of 
the  German-American  citizen  as  for  any  other 
American  citizen.  As  an  American  citizen, 
whatever  touches  our  interests  as  against  Ger¬ 
many,  concerns  the  German  as  well  as  the 
American  citizen. 

In  this  connection  let  me  say  that  I  am  not 
considering  the  Alabama  claims,  nor  have  I 
considered,  nor  do  I  care  what  might  be  the 
effect  upon  those  claims  of  the  doctrine  for 
which  I  contend.  And  speaking  here  for  one 
American  citizen,  binding  nobody  else,  and,  I 
trust,  prejudicing  no  one  else,  let  me  say  that 
I  take  no  stock  in  those  claims,  cor  in  the  case 
which  we  have  made  against  England  to  be  pre¬ 
sented  to  the  board  of  arbitration  in  Geneva. 
If  I  could  have  had  my  way,  the  United  States 
should  have  ascertained  and  paid  all  those 
claims  and  charged  the  amount  over  against 
Great  Britain.  It  would  have  been  a  bond 
against  that  nation  to  keep  the  peace,  worth 
ten  times  the  amount  of  those  claims.  If 
England  could  abide  by  the  principle  of  neu¬ 
tral  obligations  as  illustrated  by  her  conduct, 
I  am  certain  we  could.  And  if  England  to-day 
would,  as  there  has  been  some  apprehension, 
repudiate  that  treaty,  I  would  tender  her  my 
personal  thanks.  I  feel  that,  with  a  view  to 
the  prosecution  of  those  claims,  we  have 
shackled  our  country.  Our  legal  writers  have 
contended  for  restrictions  upon  the  rights  of 
neutral  nations  which  we  cannot  afford  to  have 
ingrafted  into  the  law  of  nations,  anu  for 
which  ten  or  twenty  or  fifty  million  dollars 
would  be  poor  compensation.  Situated  as  our 
country  is,  the  English  doctrine  of  neutrality 
is  far  more  beneficial  to  us  than  our  own,  and 
I  deeply  regret  the  treaty  which  attempts  to 
ingraft  upon  the  law  of  nations  principles 
which  I  believe  to  be  most  detrimental  to  us. 

Mr.  President,  I  leave  here  the  discussion 
of  the  principle  of  international  law  involved 
in  the  preamble  and  resolution  before  the 
Senate. 

But,  sir,  I  cannot  refrain  from  expressing 
the  regret  inspired  by  the  debate  which  has 
occupied  the  Senate  these  many  days.  There 
are  circumstances  connected  with  it  which  I 
fear  will  exert  a  baleful  influence.  I  shall  not 
imitate  the  example  which  has  been  set  by 
other  Senators.  I  shall  not  say  to  the  Senator 
from  Missouri,  as  he  said  to  the  Senator  from 


15 


New  York,  [Mr.  Conkling,]  that  I  pity  him  for 
the  course  he  has  taken.  That  Senator  saw  fit 
to  indulge  in  a  strain  of  debate  never  before 
witnessed  on  this  floor.  Years  ago  Mr. 
Webster  resented  as  unparliamentary  the 
words  “  match,  and  over-match;”  but,  sir,  the 
Senator  from  Missouri,  assuming  to  descend 
from  a  superior  plane  of  intelligence,  ex¬ 
pressed  his  pity  for  the  Senator  from  New 
York,  that  he  had  so  grievously  erred  in  offer¬ 
ing  his  amendment  to  this  resolution.  “How 
oft  would  I  have  gathered  you  into  the  fold  of 
wisdom  ;  but  ye  would  not.  Senator  from  New 
York,  I  pity  you.”  This  is  the  language  held 
among  equal  Senators.  I  refer  to  the  law  when 
Isay  “  equal  Senators.”  I  know  there  may  be 
great  distinctions  as  regards  learning,  intellect, 
and  influence ;  but  as  regards  the  courtesy  due 
from  one  Senator  to  another,  there  is  no  dis¬ 
tinction  among  the  members  of  this  body,  and 
such  arrogance  of  language  is  as  reprehensible 
as  it  is  discourteous.  But,  sir,  I  regret  this 
debate  on  account  of  the  evil  influence  it  can 
hardly  fail  to  exert  upon  the  American  people. 
I  have  already  acquitted  the  Senator  from  Mis¬ 
souri  of  a  want  ol  patriotism  in  promoting  this 
preamble  and  resolution  upon  the  ground  that 
he  believes  they  rest  upon  no  foundation  of 
fact,  and  that  he  is  simply  attempting  to  pro¬ 
duce  political  effect  by  debate  in  advance  of 
investigation.  But  all  men  may  not  be  as 
charitable  as  I  am.  The  mass  of  our  citizens 
do  not  know  that  Senator  as  well  as  I  do,  and 
may  not  reason  as  technically  as  I  have  done. 

The  theory  of  our  naturalization  laws'  is 
that  the  German  immigrant,  landing  upon  our 
shores,  and  being  admitted  to  citizenship 
under  the  United  States,  renounces  in  fact  as 
in  form  all  allegiance  to  and  partiality  for  his 
native  land,  and  becomes  to  all  intents  and 
purpose  an  American  ;  an  American  in  inter¬ 
est,  in  principle,  and  in  feeling.  If  this  theory 
be  found  not  to  be  vindicated  by  the  fact,  then 
our  naturalization  laws  will  go  to  the  wall. 

If  a  German,  landing  upon  our  shores,  seek¬ 
ing  and  obtaining  admission  to  our  nationality, 
and  elected  by  our  people  to  this  Senate ;  a 
man  of  experience  and  cultivation,  is  not  able 
to  cast  off  his  allegiance  to  his  native  land,  and 
himself  from  affection  toward 
his  own  country  as  to  consult  the  interests  of 
America  even  as  against  Germany ;  if  he,  in 
the  American  Senate,  he  a  member  of  the 
Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  and  as  such 
having  access  to  the  archives  of  the  State  De¬ 
partment  and  to  all  the  secrets  of  our  foreign 
policy ;  if  he  cannot  rise  above  the  feelings 
of  partial  love  which,  it  may  be  charged,  must 
bind  every  man  to  his  native  land,  then  it 
would  follow  that  the  theory  upon  which  our 
naturalization  laws  rest  is  not  supported  by 
facts,  and  it  would  merit  serious  consideration 
whether  those  laws  should  not  be  changed. 

Mr.  SCHURZ.  If  the  Senator  will  permit 
me,  I  just  came  into  the  Chamber  when  he 
commenced  that  passage,  and  I  did  not  hear 
what  preceded  it.  Did  I  understand  the  Sen¬ 
ator  to  charge  that  I  have  not  cast  off  my 
allegiance  to  any  foreign  country  ? 


Mr.  CARPENTER.  When  I  want  to  charge 
that,  I  will  say  so. 

Mr.  SCHURZ.  I  merely  asked  you  whether 
that  was  what  preceded  the  last  sentence  ? 

Mr.  CARPENTER.  Let  me  ask  the  Sen¬ 
ator  another  question  just  as  pertinent  as  that : 
Does  he  mean  to  charge  me  with  committing 
murder? 

Mr.  SCHURZ.  I  heard  the  Senator  say,  “  if 
he  cannot  cast  off  his  allegiance  to  another 
country,”  and  I  asked  the  Senator  simply 
whether  he  had  in  any  previous  sentence 
charged  me  with  any  such  thing. 

Mr.  CARPENTER.  The  Senator  heard  all 
that  is  material.  I  acquitted  him  in  the  out¬ 
set  of  what  would  be  the  serious  charge  that 
he  was  actuated  by  partiality  for  his  native 
country  by  the  charitable  presumption  that  he 
did  not  believe  that  the  United  States  had  vio¬ 
lated  its  neutral  duties.  But  I  said,  as  near  as 
I  can  recollect,  that  I  regretted  this  debate  on 
account  of  the  influence  it  would  exert  upon 
the  people.  I  then  referred  to  our  naturaliza¬ 
tion  laws,  and  stated  the  theory  upon  which 
they  rest — that  the  foreigner  naturalized  here 
could,  and  did,  so  far  lay  aside  his  affection 
for  his  native  land  as  to  take  part  with 
America  even  against  that  native  land.  And, 
speaking  of  the  manner  in  which  the  people 
would  reason  upon  the  subject,  I  intended 
to  say,  what  I  now  repeat,  that  the  fact  that 
a  native  of  Prussia,  a  naturalized  citizen  and 
a  Senator  of  the  United  States,  taking  part 
in  promoting  this  preamble  and  resolution 
might  be  considered  by  the  people,  who  do  not 
understand  as  well  as  I  do  that  the  object  of 
this  proceeding  is  to  make  political  capital 
in  our  own  country  by  unfounded  accusation, 
without  expectation  that  the  investigation  will 
show  that  our  nation  hasbeen  in  fault  in  regard 
to  its  neutral  duties,  would  be  considered,  un¬ 
justly  in  fact,  but  still  considered,  as  evidence 
that  a  naturalized  citizen  would  take  the  part 
of  his  native  country  against  our  own  ;  and 
thereupon  the  people  would  question  the  wis¬ 
dom  of  our  naturalization  laws. 

Having  repeatedly  disclaimed  the  intention 
of  fixing  upon  the  Senator  from  Missouri  the 
charge  that  he  has  been  unfaithful  to  his  oath 
of  allegiance  to  this  country,  I  shall  be  under¬ 
stood  when  I  say  that  I  fear  the  people  will 
not  reason  as  charitably  as  I  do,  and  that  for 
this  reason  our  American  citizens  may  be 
led  to  question  the  policy  of  our  naturaliza¬ 
tion  laws,  as  they  would  not  be  if  they  knew 
that  the  Senator  from  Missouri  was  laboring 
in  the  capacity  of  an  American  politician  to 
produce  an  immediate  effect  injurious  to  Gen¬ 
eral  Grant,  without  the  slightest  expectation 
that  the  investigation  would  establish  any  just 
ground  for  Prussia  to  complain  against  us. 

Mr.  President,  let  no  man  infer  from  this, 
and,  most  of  all,  let  no  man  charge  me  with 
being  a  Know-Nothing.  I  have  vindicated  my 
friendship  for  the  naturalization  laws  every¬ 
where  and  always.  I  have  always  voted  in 
this  Chamber  to  enlarge  and  never  to  restrict 
the  scope  of  our  laws  upon  naturalization.  I 
have  always  voted  with  the  Senator  from  Mas- 


16 


sacbusetts  [Mr.  Sumner]  against  excluding 
John  Chinaman  from  the  privileges  of  ctizen- 
ship,  though  I  believe  the  Senator  from  Mis¬ 
souri  (but  I  am  not  sui-e  of  this)  has  voted 
against  me  upon  this  subject.  I  have  always 
voted  to  open  our  doors  to  all  nations  and  to 
all  men, because  I  have  ever  believed  that  the 
great  mass  of  naturalized  citizens  were  as  hon¬ 
estly  devoted  to  the  interests  of  our  country 
as  the  native-born  citizens.  And  I  do  not 
believe  that  the  mass  of  German-American 
citizens  will  follow  any  leader  in  a  crusade 
against  our  own  country  or  its  Administration 
upon  the  ground  of  partiality  for  the  father- 
land. 

Why,  sir,  what  is  meant  by  allegiance  ?  Al¬ 
legiance  is  an  old  term  of  the  law.  Fealty 
was  sworn  in  a  certain  solemn,  prescribed 
manner  by  the  tenant  to  his  immediate  lord, 
but  when  his  oath  of  fealty  had  to  be  taken  to 
the  superior  lord,  the  king,  then  it  was  called 
the  oath  of  allegiance,  and  that  oath,  as  admin¬ 
istered  in  England  for  six  hundred  years,  con¬ 
tained  this  promise  : 

“To  be  true  and  faithful  to  the  king  and  his  heirs, 
and  truth  and  faith  to  bear  of  life  and  limb  and  ter¬ 
rene  honor,  and  not  to  know  or  hear  of  any  ill  or 
damasre  intended  him  without  defending  him  there¬ 
from.” 

Our  statute  in  regard  to  naturalization  was 
intended  to  secure  this  fidelity  on  the  part  of 
the  naturalized  citizen  toward  our  country.  It 
is  provided : 

“First.  He  shall  have  declared  on  oath  or  affirma¬ 
tion  before  the  supreme,  superior,  district,  or  circuit 
court  of  some  one  of  the  States  or  of  the  Territories 
north,  west,  or  south  of  the  river  Ohio,  or  a  circuit 
or  district  court  o-f  the  United  States,  three  years  at 
least  before  his  admission,  that  it  was.  bona  fide,  his 
intention  to  become  a  citizen  of  the  United  States, 
and  to  renounce  forever  all  allegiance  and  fidelity 
to  any  foreign  prince,  potentate.  State,  or  sovereignty 
whatever,  and  particularly,  by  name,  the  prince, 
potentate.  State,  or  sovereignty  whereof  such  alien 
m|iy  at  the  time  be  a  citizen  or  subject. 

‘  Secondly.  He  shall,  at  the  time  of  his  application 
to  bo  admitted,  declare  on  oath  or  affirmation,  be¬ 
fore  some  one  of  the  courts  aforesaid,  that  he  has 
resided  within  the  United  States,  five  years  at  least, 
and  within  the  State  or  Territory  where  such  court 


is  at  the  time  held,  one  year  at  least:  that  he  will 
support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States ;  and 
that  he  doth  absolutely  and  entirely  renounce  and 
abjure  all  allegiance  and  fidelity  to  every  foreign 
prince,  potentate,  State,  or  sovereignty  whatever, 
and  particularly,  by  name,  the  prince,  potentate. 
State,  or  sovereignty  whereof  he  was  before  a  citi¬ 
zen  or  subject,  which  proceeding  shall  be  recorded 
by  the  clerk  of  the  court, 

“  Thirdly.  The  court  admitting  such  alien  shall 
be  satisfied  that  he  has  resided  within  the  limits 
and  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  five 
years;  and  it  shall  further  appear,  to  their  satisfac¬ 
tion,  that  during  that  tkne  he  has  behaved  as  a  man 
of  good  moral  character,  attached  to  the  principles 
of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  well 
disposed  to  the  good  order  and  happiness  of  the 
same. 

“  Fourthly.  In  case  the  alien  applying  to  be  ad¬ 
mitted  to  citizenship  shall  have  borne  any  hereditary 
title,  or  been  of  any  of  the  orders  of  nobility,  in  the 
kingdom  or  State  from  which  he  came,  he  shall,  in 
addition  to  the  above  requisites  make  an  express 
renunciation  of  his  title  or  order  of  nobility  in  the 
court  to  which  his  application  shall  be  made;  which 
renunciation  shall  be  recorded  in  the  said  court.” 

The  Senator  from  Missouri,  in  common  yvith 
pvery  <  thor  Senator  on  this  floor,  and  in  com- 
»i*.3i  Wi  y  American  Senator,  if  he  learn 

of  any  »e  intended  to  our  country  by 

Prussia,  is  ,and  to  defend  us  against  it.  He 
is  placed  by  his  oath  of  allegiance  under  as 
solemn  a  duty  as  was  imposed  upon  Macbeth 
while  Duncan  slumbered  beneath  his  roof.  It 
is  his  duty  as  to  all  accusers  of  our  nation  to 
shut  the  door  against  our  accusers,  and  not  to 
bear  accusation  himself.” 

And  I  trust,  sir,  that  the  great  body  of  our 
German-American  citizens  will  see  their  true 
interests  too  plainly  to  be  led  away  from  the 
Administration  upon  any  such  grounds  as  have 
been  suggested,  even  if  those  grounds  were 
well  founded  in  fact ;  and  especially  do  I  hope 
and  trust  that  they  will  not  allow  themselves 
to  be  led  away  from  the  Administration  by  a 
totally  unfounded  complaint  that  our  Govern¬ 
ment  has  dealt  unfairly  toward  their  native 
land.  My  trust  is  that  the  German,-  Armericans 
are  too  intelligent  not  to  see  that  in  this  mat¬ 
ter  they  owe  their  duty  to  America,  and  not  to 
Prussia. 


.  <x  hot’ 


si 


Sf 


{Mr 

'in  v 
r  *t 

f#  i 
au  3 


16 


sachusetts  [Mr.  Sumner]  against  excluding 
John  Chinaman  from  the  privileges  of  ctizen- 
ship,  though  I  believe  the  Senator  from  Mis¬ 
souri  (but  I  am  not  sure  of  this)  has  voted 
against  me  upon  this  subject.  I  have  always 
voted  to  open  our  doors  to  all  nations  and  to 
all  men, because  I  have  ever  believed  that  the 
great  mass  of  naturalized  citizens  were  as  hon¬ 
estly  devoted  to  the  interests  of  our  country 
as  the  native-born  citizens.  And  I  do  not 
believe  that  the  mass  of  German-American 
citizens  will  follow  any  leader  in  a  crusade 
against  our  own  country  or  its  Administration 
upon  the  ground  of  partiality  for  the  father- 
land. 

Why,  sir,  what  is  meant  by  allegiance?  Al¬ 
legiance  is  an  ©Id  term  of  the  law.  Fealty 
was  sworn  in  a  certain  solemn,  prescribed 
manner  by  the  tenant  to  his  immediate  lord, 
t>dt  when  his  oath  of  fealty  had  to  be  taken  to 
the  superior  lord,  the  king,  then  it  was  called 
the  oath  of  allegiance,  and  that  oath,  as  admin¬ 
istered  in  England  for  six  hundred  years,  con¬ 
tained  this  promise : 

“To  be  true  and  faithful  to  the  king  and  his  heirs, 
and  truth  and  faith  to  bear  of  life  and  limb  and  ter¬ 
rene  honor,  and  not  to  know  or  hear  of  any  ill  or 
damage  intended  him  without  defending  him  there¬ 
from.” 

Our  statute  in  regard  to  naturalization  was 
intended  to  secure  this  fidelity  on  the  part  of 
the  naturalized  citizen  toward  our  country.  It 
is  provided : 

"First.  He  shall  have  declared  on  oath  or  affirma¬ 
tion  before  the  supreme,  superior,  district,  or  circuit 
court  of  some  one  of  the  States  or  of  the  Territories 
north,  west,  or  south  of  the  river  Ohio,  or  a  circuit 
or  district  court  of  the  United  States,  three  years  at 
least  before  his  admission,  that  it  was.  bona  fide,  his 
intention  to  become  a  citizen  of  the  United  States, 
and  to  renounce  forever  all  allegiance  and  fidelity 
to  any  foreign  prince,  potentate.  State,  or  sovereignty 
whatever,  and  particularly,  by  name,  the  prince, 
potentate,  State,  or  sovereignty  whereof  sucn  alien 
m|iy  at  the  time  be  a  citizen  or  subject. 

‘  Secondly.  He  shall,  at  the  time  of  his  application 
to  be  admitted,  declare  on  oath  or  affirmation,  be¬ 
fore  some  one  of  the  courts  aforesaid,  that  he  has 
resided  withia  the  United  States,  five  years  at  least, 
and  within  the  State  or  Territory  where  such  court 


is  at  the  time  held,  one  year  at  least;  that  he  will 
support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States;  and 
that  he  doth  absolutely  and  entirely  renounce  and 
abjure  all  allegiance  and  fidelity  to  every  foreign 
prince,  potentate,  State,  or  sovereignty  whatever, 
and  particularly,  by  name,  the  prince,  potentate, 
State,  or  sovereignty  whereof  he  was  before  a  citi¬ 
zen  or  subject,  which  proceeding  shall  be  recorded 
by  the  clerk  of  the  court, 

“  Thirdly.  The  court  admitting  such  alien  shall 
be  satisfied  that  he  has  resided  within  the  limits 
and  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  five 
years;  and  it  shall  further  appear,  to  their  satisfac¬ 
tion,  that  during  that  time  he  has  behaved  as  a  man 
of  good  moral  character,  attached  to  the  principles 
of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  well 
disposed  to  the  good  order  and  happiness  of  the 
same. 

“  Fourthly .  In  case  the  alien  applying  to  be  ad¬ 
mitted  to  citizenship  shall  have  borne  any  hereditary 
title,  or  been  of  any  of  the  orders  of  nobility,  in  the 
kingdom  or  State  from  which  he  came,  he  shall,  in 
addition  to  the  above  requisites  make  an  express 
renunciation  of  his  title  or  order  of  nobility  in  the 
court  to  which  his  application  shall  be  made;  which 
renunciation  shall  be  recorded  in  the  said  court.” 

The  Senator  from  Missouri,  in  common  with 
every  other  Senator  on  this  floor,  and  in  com¬ 
mon  with  every  American  Senator  if  he  learn 
of  any  damage  intended  to  our  country  by 
Prussia,  is  bound  to  defend  us  againstit.  _ He 
is  placed  by  bis  oath  of  allegiance  under  as 
solemn^  duty  as  was  imposed  upon  Macbeth 
while  Duncan  slumbered  beneath  his  roof.'  It 
is  his  duty  as  to  all  accusers  of  our  nation  V  to 
shut  the  door  against  our  accusers,  and  not  to 
bear  accusation  himself.” 

And  I  trust,  sir,  that  the  great  body  of  our 
German-American  citizens  will  see  their  true 
interests  .too  plainly  to  be  led  away  from  the 
Administration  upon  any  such  grounds  as  have 
been  suggested,  even  if  those  grounds  were 
well  founded  in  fact ;  and  especially  do  I'hope 
and  trust  that  they  will  not  allow  themselves 
to  be  led  away  from  the  Administration  by  a 
totally  unfounded  complaint  that  o.ur  Govern¬ 
ment  has  dealt  unfairly  toward  their  native 
land.  My  trust  is  that  the  German.- Americans 
are  too  intelligent  not  to  see  that  in  this  mat¬ 
ter  they  owe  their  duty  to  America,  and  n<^  to 
Prussia. 


